Disney Parks for SALE???

[Faldred]

@NYTimez -- I could have sworn I had read something different once upon a time, but I've been unable to find such any reference, so I must have been mistaken.

I should also have prefaced my suppositions with this not being something I would expect Apple to do any time soon, either. Content will eventually become king, but it will take a good long while to actually get to that point. Technology still needs to advance to the point where the question of how content is accessed and managed matters far less than what the content is.

Eventually, even if Apple is primarily concerned in controlling the distribution channel, they may need to make a defensive move in acquiring (or otherwise controlling) major media outlets to ensure that their distribution scheme is still the preferred one (or at least, a preferred one) by keeping those outlets out of some third-party or consortium solution that cuts Apple out of the loop.

Or not. Crystal balls are fun to gaze in, but their answers aren't particularly reliable.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Enter Disney. Or more precisely, ABC. ESPN. Several film distribution companies (Buena Vista, Touchstone, Hollywood, Walden, etc.) Books. Music. Even the recent acquisition of Marvel.

Just to clarify...

The former Buena Vista Film Distribution Company is now called Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. It's the film distribution company owned by The Walt Disney Company.

Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures are brands for movies. Hollywood Pictures is a brand that Disney no longer uses.

Walden Media is not part of Disney, although Disney has marketed and distributed some Walden Media movies, including the first two movies in the "Chronicles of Narnia" series. (The third one was marketed and distributed by 20th Century Fox.)

Of course, as you said, Pixar was sold to Disney, indicating that Jobs didn't want to be in the media market.

It really indicated that the amount that Bob Iger was willing to pay for Pixar was so incredibly high that Steve Jobs could not say no.

 

[dismichael]

Well, based on what I have read about Disney stock, and being a stockholder myself, this would be my guess....

Disney is run by a board of investors- I think it's about 5-12 people that are all majority shareholders of the public stock in the company. This pertains to the Disney Corporation, that controls the parks, branding, merchandise, etc. With exception to the overseas ventures, in which were done jointly with an investing partner. With that said, for someone to "sell" Disney, as it was so blatantly described, the stocks of all of the major investors would have to be purchased. Also, one of the majority stockholders are the Disney family themselves. Thus, I can't see someone coming in and convincing or forcing everyone in that group to sell (in which they would gain control). Now, for example, say someone came in and bought a majority share, yes, they would be a new investor, but everything would still have to be democratically voted upon via the rest of the investors.

This is not a situation like the current one that Universal Studios is in. Universal is owned by two major investors- Comcast (49%) is one and the company and GE (51%) the other. If someone was to purchase one of those two majority shares, they would have giant implications on structure and framework of Universal.

However, with the number of divisions of majority stock and other factors, I can't see Disney being "sold" as it were, but even if a new investor was implied, I don't think the effects would be dire.

 

[nytimez]

Well, based on what I have read about Disney stock, and being a stockholder myself, this would be my guess....

Disney is run by a board of investors- I think it's about 5-12 people that are all majority shareholders of the public stock in the company. This pertains to the Disney Corporation, that controls the parks, branding, merchandise, etc. With exception to the overseas ventures, in which were done jointly with an investing partner. With that said, for someone to "sell" Disney, as it was so blatantly described, the stocks of all of the major investors would have to be purchased. Also, one of the majority stockholders are the Disney family themselves. Thus, I can't see someone coming in and convincing or forcing everyone in that group to sell (in which they would gain control). Now, for example, say someone came in and bought a majority share, yes, they would be a new investor, but everything would still have to be democratically voted upon via the rest of the investors.

This is not a situation like the current one that Universal Studios is in. Universal is owned by two major investors- Comcast (49%) is one and the company and GE (51%) the other. If someone was to purchase one of those two majority shares, they would have giant implications on structure and framework of Universal.

However, with the number of divisions of majority stock and other factors, I can't see Disney being "sold" as it were, but even if a new investor was implied, I don't think the effects would be dire.

You don't really need to convince Steve Jobs, who owns around 7 percent of Disney, or Michael Eisner, who owns less than 2 percent of the company, to sell Disney. Those are the two largest individual shareholders and they own less than 10 percent of the company.

I don't know what stake anyone in the Disney family may hold, but it's insignificant at this point.

The real power behind Disney is a series of hedge funds, investment banks and mutual funds. I'm doing the numbers from memory so I may be off by a little, but I believe the top 10 institutional investors own something like a quarter of Disney .

That's the real power behind the company, and the board -- and the real reason for Disney's short-sighted focus on the upcoming quarterly revenues.

In any case, corporations with multiple major (and millions of minor) investors are bought and sold all the time, and major investors can certainly force the board to consider offers of sale.

Outside corporations can also force a board to bring a proposed purchase of a company directly to the shareholders, which was going to be Comcast's approach when they wanted to buy Disney a few years back until they thought the better of it, from what I recall.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Well, based on what I have read about Disney stock, and being a stockholder myself, this would be my guess....

Disney is run by a board of investors- I think it's about 5-12 people that are all majority shareholders of the public stock in the company. This pertains to the Disney Corporation, that controls the parks, branding, merchandise, etc. With exception to the overseas ventures, in which were done jointly with an investing partner. With that said, for someone to "sell" Disney, as it was so blatantly described, the stocks of all of the major investors would have to be purchased. Also, one of the majority stockholders are the Disney family themselves. Thus, I can't see someone coming in and convincing or forcing everyone in that group to sell (in which they would gain control). Now, for example, say someone came in and bought a majority share, yes, they would be a new investor, but everything would still have to be democratically voted upon via the rest of the investors.

This is not a situation like the current one that Universal Studios is in. Universal is owned by two major investors- Comcast (49%) is one and the company and GE (51%) the other. If someone was to purchase one of those two majority shares, they would have giant implications on structure and framework of Universal.

However, with the number of divisions of majority stock and other factors, I can't see Disney being "sold" as it were, but even if a new investor was implied, I don't think the effects would be dire.

There's a fair amount of misinformation in the quotation above.

The name of the company is The Walt Disney Company (not Disney Corporation).

The Walt Disney Company has wholly owned and partially owned businesses in the United States and internationally. It's not a simple matter of always owning 100% in the USA and "overseas ventures" being "done jointly with an investing partner." For example, The Walt Disney Company owns a majority stake in ESPN (in the United States), but not 100%.

As nytimez noted, the major two shareholders with significant stakes are Steve Jobs and Michael Eisner. Of these two, only Steve Jobs is on the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors consists of 13 individuals elected by the shareholders. The Directors do not even have to own stock in The Walt Disney Company.

This thread started with a rumor about Disney selling their theme parks. It is not a thread about "Disney being 'sold' as it were."

Companies can and do sell off or spin off business units when it makes business sense. Comcast and General Electric own NBCUniversal, LLC as a joint venture. Comcast and General Electric each have their own Board of Directors and a vast number of shareholders. The Boards of Directors of the two companies decided it made business sense to put certain assets into the joint venture and to let Comcast manage these assets.

I don't expect Disney to sell their theme parks, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely.

 

[Micca]

Saudi Prince buys WDW= Yeti gets fixed asap.

 

[lugnut33]

Saudi Prince buys WDW= Yeti gets fixed asap.

Don't bet on it.

I do actually believe that there are a lot of CM's in upper management that are committed to the beliefs that Walt forged. I don't think selling the company is a slam dunk no brainer like many of you are saying.

 

[OllieDannyandMe]

This discussion reminds me of an analogy that one of my teachers made many years ago. It was during the late 1980s, and the teacher was trying to convey the enormity of something that had happened in history.

She said, "Imagine if something as popular and successful as The Walt Disney Company just ceased to exist. Imagine if it was gone from this earth. Imagine if all facets of the company closed their doors, went out of business, and simply disappeared." Then, she went on to compare some event in America's history to that scenario, saying it was equally unbelievable to the people who lived during that time.

I cannot even remember the event now. I was so busy trying to wrap my mind around what she was describing. It definitely shocked me, although it probably should not have.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Don't bet on it.

I do actually believe that there are a lot of CM's in upper management that are committed to the beliefs that Walt forged. I don't think selling the company is a slam dunk no brainer like many of you are saying.

I respectfully and completely disagree. The Walt-ites are long gone in management.

 

[DisDreaminMom]

Just thinking out loud here, so don't attack me, but I wonder if the parks were ever offloaded, if it would be an attempt to get out from under the weight of various union contracts that encumber resorts, parks, etc. Like, "whoopsie, all the contracts are void and have to be re-negotiated!"

(*ducks down to avoid flames*)

 

[lugnut33]

I respectfully and completely disagree. The Walt-ites are long gone in management.

I knew you would. It's disingenous to believe that we on the Dis (or any other fan forums) are the only ones who are the keepers of the flame. Two high up CMs at Disney that I'll point to are John Lassiter and George Kalligredes (spelling?) that are cast out of Walt's mould.

 

[dismichael]

It is funny this argument has gone from being whether Disney will or will not sell to a argument about the Disney company and management!

Horace Horsecollar you need to look around before making accusations this is from the Disney corporate website: "For more than eight decades, the name Walt Disney has been preeminent in the field of family entertainment. From humble beginnings as a cartoon studio in the 1920s to today's global corporation, The Walt Disney Company continues to proudly provide quality entertainment for every member of the family, across America and around the world." (was not sure if i could post link). Second i made no mention of Disney's subsidiaries (i.e. ESPN (which Disney owns 80% of)). The joint investments referred to Disney licensing its name to companies such as the Oriental Land Company in ventures like Tokyo DL.

Yes i did mistakenly say that the Board is made up of shareholders but the shareholders vote on who is on the board...Just as each American has a say in who is the president (well not really bc of the electoral college but for arguments sake), senators, congressmen, etc. Now we do not actually get to vote on each and every law but because those who we have elected have our best interest at heart so we hope they make the right decision. And is America not still known as a democracy and government by the people for the people.... Thus it is the same with the board those of us who own stock vote and those who are elected make decisions based on common interests. (and P.S. Eisner was on the board until he resigned all his titles and severed ties with Disney)


Now for Nytimez, i do not know where you got the idea that Steve Jobs and Eisner would just sell all their stock so willingly but i would love to know. As for the statement about the institutional investors owning a quarter of Disney...Even if they own that amount that is still not enough to commandeer the Board and have the company for themselves. So even if the major investors force the Board to to review an offer it means next to nothing... The board who is voted on by ALL shareholders can still reject the offer.

My posts are simply my opinion and views in response to the OP and are not meant offend others.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

I knew you would. It's disingenous to believe that we on the Dis (or any other fan forums) are the only ones who are the keepers of the flame. Two high up CMs at Disney that I'll point to are John Lassiter and George Kalligredes (spelling?) that are cast out of Walt's mould.

Do you think Lassiter is happy in his job right now? After Cars 2? Don't know George but if he's a Walt deciple he either (1) doesn't get listened to or (2) won't be around much longer. Further, while "disingenuous" is truly a fine word, I'm not sure how it applied to my position, unless of course you're being disingenuous.. Surely there ARE some CM's who still have Walt's best interest in them but none of them make any crucial decisions, do they? Therefore the future of the Company is truly on a path as plotted mostly by Iger and Staggs. Do either of them have any 'magic' about them?

 

[nytimez]

Now for Nytimez, i do not know where you got the idea that Steve Jobs and Eisner would just sell all their stock so willingly but i would love to know.

I'd love to know too since I never said it.

As for the statement about the institutional investors owning a quarter of Disney...Even if they own that amount that is still not enough to commandeer the Board and have the company for themselves. So even if the major investors force the Board to to review an offer it means next to nothing... The board who is voted on by ALL shareholders can still reject the offer.

My posts are simply my opinion and views in response to the OP and are not meant offend others.

I didn't say institutional investors own a quarter of Disney. I said the top 10 institutional investors own a quarter of Disney. That's not all of them. Just the top 10.

Combined, institutional investors own a heckuva lot more than a quarter of the company, and it was these groups that forced Eisner out when only SOME of them -- NOT a majority -- voted not against him, but to withhold their support for him (which is not quite the same thing).

That's how much power they have.

FWIW, Horace had it right. Reread his post, because nothing in there is a matter of opinion -- it's all fact. You have it so wrong in so many places I wouldn't even know where to begin if I wanted to point them all out (starting with the fact that there are a number of ways to takeover a company without cooperation from the board. Google "hostile takeover" if you're interested). In addition, this thread isn't even about the sale of Disney, just the parks -- I was just responding to point out the mistakes in logic, not because I want to take this thread that far off topic.

 

[dismichael]

I'd love to know too since I never said it.



I didn't say institutional investors own a quarter of Disney. I said the top 10 institutional investors own a quarter of Disney. That's not all of them. Just the top 10.

Combined, institutional investors own a heckuva lot more than a quarter of the company, and it was these groups that forced Eisner out when only SOME of them -- NOT a majority -- voted not against him, but to withhold their support for him (which is not quite the same thing).

That's how much power they have.

FWIW, Horace had it right. Reread his post, because nothing in there is a matter of opinion -- it's all fact. You have it so wrong in so many places I wouldn't even know where to begin if I wanted to point them all out (starting with the fact that there are a number of ways to takeover a company without cooperation from the board. Google "hostile takeover" if you're interested). In addition, this thread isn't even about the sale of Disney, just the parks -- I was just responding to point out the mistakes in logic, not because I want to take this thread that far off topic.

25% of a company as large as Disney is surely enough to sway any vote- I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the sale of the PARKS (as you do wish to stay on topic) would not be an easy decision, or one that makes sense. The parks are a major part of the Disney franchise- yes, they could lease it or however you want to put it, but I just don't see that happening. And as I said before, I think this due to the way Disney is invested in. UNLIKE some companies that are owned by 1-2 other companies (i.e. Universal), Disney has many stakeholders. Yes, hostile takeovers are possible, but if you remember your economics class, the shares would still need to be for sale in order for this to happen. It all comes down to two things: 1. The position of the board members, and their belief in the future of the parks if a sale was rendered, and 2. If the parks are currently making money.

FOR 2010 WALT DISNEY COMPANY'S NET INCOME FOR SOLELY THE PARKS WAS 1.318 BILLION DOLLARS. Forgive me, but most companies dream of earnings like that. So, unless the offer was so substantial that America itself could pay off its national debt, which I don't see happening, I think Disney is safe.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

My posts are simply my opinion and views in response to the OP and are not meant offend others.

People are entitled to have their own opinions. People are not entitled to have their own facts.

One of the great things about a forum such as this one is that opinions can be discussed, and inaccurate facts can be corrected.

 

[dismichael]

People are entitled to have their own opinions. People are not entitled to have their own facts.

One of the great things about a forum such as this one is that opinions can be discussed, and inaccurate facts can be corrected.

I agree 100%...This is exactly the reason i correct both your article and that of nytimez. Your articles weren't opinionated and had many incorrect facts. Such as but not limited to: 1) When you said Disney is not a corporation and http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/complete_history.html (It clearly states on the top of the page that it is in fact a corporation). 2) I don't even know why you brought up Espn as it is a subsidiary and i made no mention of subsidiaries in my first article...I did make mention to joint ventures overseas referring to Tokyo Disneyland, etc. A completely different situation than what Espn is in because these are divisions not subsidiaries.

As for the incorrect facts in my posts they are not incorrect... The board is made of 13 members but not all of them have to attend all the meetings (ie Steve Jobs missed 75% of meetings last year) and previously there were only 12 seats until they split CEO and Chairman.

What i meant by that ending statement was that these are the facts....so get over it!

 

[nytimez]

I agree 100%...This is exactly the reason i correct both your article and that of nytimez. Your articles weren't opinionated and had many incorrect facts. Such as but not limited to: 1) When you said Disney is not a corporation and http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/complete_history.html (It clearly states on the top of the page that it is in fact a corporation). 2) I don't even know why you brought up Espn as it is a subsidiary and i made no mention of subsidiaries in my first article...I did make mention to joint ventures overseas referring to Tokyo Disneyland, etc. A completely different situation than what Espn is in because these are divisions not subsidiaries.

As for the incorrect facts in my posts they are not incorrect... The board is made of 13 members but not all of them have to attend all the meetings (ie Steve Jobs missed 75% of meetings last year) and previously there were only 12 seats until they split CEO and Chairman.

What i meant by that ending statement was that these are the facts....so get over it!

You're defending things no one disputes and ignoring the numerous and egregious errors you made.

 

[dismichael]

WHAT ERRORS?!? My articles are based on FACTS... You and Horace are arguing the FACTS. The ONE AND ONLY error made on my behalf was continuing an argument about economics with two people so naive to the workings of a company and that act like children and cannot accept defeat

 

[nytimez]

WHAT ERRORS?!? My articles are based on FACTS... You and Horace are arguing the FACTS. The ONE AND ONLY error made on my behalf was continuing an argument about economics with two people so naive to the workings of a company and that act like children and cannot accept defeat

Early on, you admitted that all you had was your "guess" and "opinion." Now, suddenly, you're Mr. Facts?

Also, insults don't help your cause.

Well, based on what I have read about Disney stock, and being a stockholder myself, this would be my guess....

See?

Disney is run by a board of investors- I think it's about 5-12 people that are all majority shareholders of the public stock in the company.

Wrong

This pertains to the Disney Corporation,

Not the name of the company, even if it is a corporation, so... wrong.

Also, one of the majority stockholders are the Disney family themselves.

Wrong.

Now, for example, say someone came in and bought a majority share, yes, they would be a new investor, but everything would still have to be democratically voted upon via the rest of the investors.

Wrong.

... and that's just your first post... I don't have the time or interest in going through the rest.