Disney reworking Eisners contract

[eeyorefanatic]

On Drudge with no link, just developing.

 

[BRERALEX]

Ill start praying now

 

[airlarry!]

The link speculates that Ei$ner will keep his full salary even though he lost 1/2 of his duties.

Cool! Ei$ner has gotten big bonuses when the business didn't produce results in the past. Now he's figured out a way to get a 'bonus' (full salary) even though he was fired!

I wonder if my boss will do that.

AirLarry: Boss, you're working me too hard. Can I give half of my work to Joe Schmeaux?

Boss: Sure.

AirLarry: Can I keep my full salary? Ei$ner did.

Boss: (stunned silence) Well, if the shareholders and the board of directors thinks that's a good idea, how can I argue?

 

[Luv2Roam]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040310/bs_nm/media_disney_report_dc_1
Not much info, which is not too surprising.

 

[Cricket2]

I have a question.

It's been made obvious that he has been removed as chairman, but I can't find anywhere that says he was removed from the board entirely. It still shows his name on the shareholder's site as being a member of the board. They have obviously edited the site to make Mit¢hell the chair, but Ei$ner's name still remains.

Is he still on the board or not?

JC

 

[lodgelady]

GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

 

[hopemax]

Mr. Cricket,

Eisner still ran unopposed, so since he got a billion votes he was elected to the board. Then the board voted for the chairman, which Mitchell won.

 

[Doug123]

It seems as though Eisner losing his CEO title was simply done in an attempt to satisfy unhappy investors, without really changing the power structure within the company.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

 

[dcentity2000]

I just reckon it's a delay tactic.

Calm people down then when everything is quiet again, step down quietly...

That way Eisner gets a nice, respectful way out and the rebels get what they want




Rich::

 

[Cricket2]

So even if they were to wake up and remove him from the CEO position, we still have to deal with him on the board because he was re-elected?

JC

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by Mr. J. Cricket
So even if they were to wake up and remove him from the CEO position, we still have to deal with him on the board because he was re-elected?

JC

Yup.

But even if he stays, I think he'll step down anyway. He knows his number's up.





Rich::

 

[BRERALEX]

he's still 'chairman' of the board. Mitchell and Ei$ner swapped to keep the mad hooligans from storming the castle.

Someone said he would step down in the near future and cite medical reasons i agree with that assessment.

 

[DWatWDW]

Originally posted by airlarry!
The link speculates that Ei$ner will keep his full salary even though he lost 1/2 of his duties.

This might be the golden opportunity for the shareholders. After such a high no confidence vote, any percieved increase in value of Eisner's contract should be enough to open the board up to lawsuits from shareholders.

 

[daber]

I'm just afraid this may extend the contract past 2006, since it's up for re-negotiation......and wasn't this (changing the rules mid-stream) what ME was so opposed to when it came to Pixar?

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
Someone said he would step down in the near future and cite medical reasons i agree with that assessment.

Eisner tried to step down due to heart problems, I think it was, at some point in the past but the board - including Roy, POSSIBLY (I can't remember exactly) asked him very passionately not to go (please - someone verify this?)

The issue is still there and is therefore a 'safe' escape for Eisner.

He can show he's strong, fend of Comcast (to the benefit of his track record) and then leave due to health reasons. Poor Eisner, blah blah blah, sad to see you go, blah blah blah, don't forget your hat

As for lawsuits against Disney... well, in America it's probably possible already But it would be costly and very dangerous as Comcast would be all too happy to use this :/



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by daber
I'm just afraid this may extend the contract past 2006, since it's up for re-negotiation......and wasn't this (changing the rules mid-stream) what ME was so opposed to when it came to Pixar?

Daber, given the current climate I don't think Eisner will be kept too far past 2006 if at all

Eisner wasn't the one who ended the talks with Pixar, it was Pixar / Apple CEO Steve Jobs who had decided that (brace yourselves) he wanted more money. People also speculated it had something to do with personal feelings between himself and Eisner, perhaps the two most volatile CEOs around... for instance, Eisner had cited Apple's "Rip, Mix, Burn" ad campaign in apresentation against piracy. Jobs used a phone call to an answer phone to inform Eisner that Pixar was walking.

You are quite right though to say that changing the rules midstream was an anti-Eisner sentiment and he mentioned it in his reply back to Pixar, I believe.

In the end, though, it seemed to be for the better... Pixar wanted a TONNE from Disney, way too much for the deal to be worth it and, as all the likkle newspapers said, relying on Pixar was sapping the creative spirit from Disney.

Unfortunately, for now at least, the rules shall have to be changed midstream. Currently he's meant to stay until 2006 but to show that the boad has at least heard the dissident vote he must have the terms of his employment re-evaluated by those who know best. An immediate reduction in importance is probably only the first step :/



Rich::

 

[hulabird]

There is a class action lawsuit against Disney right now, the link below will take you to the info. It has to do with the Comcast thing. Scroll down a few and you will see it.



Class Action America