Does anyone like Eisner?

[WDSearcher]

Well ... a big chunk of the board apparently does, or they'd have ousted him already. Whether they're loyal to him because of financial gains they've made or whether they truly like him isn't really the point. They're standing behind him against Roy and Stanley, and that's what draws the battle lines. Statements by the board have been leveled against the other two, and it's obvious that there's still board support for ME.

Roy and Stanley have to be careful to not come off as "Grumpy Old Men" here. Or as guys who are holding a grudge. And if they're going to laundry-list the stuff that's been done wrong, they need to offer something to those looking to them to make things right again. For example, they grouse about no succession plan, but then push for Michael to leave. That doesn't make sense to me. If Michael took their advice today and said, "OK ... bye," what would happen? The mere fact that there is no succession plan in place means that he can't go. Yet.

Now that doesn't mean I'm not in favor of ME moving on. It just means that as a stockholder, I'd rather there be a plan in place before someone is booted out. It's not like Roy is going to take the gig. Tell me or show me who's going to step into the top spot and let me see if that's better or worse. Just because the leadership would be different with someone else, doesn't mean it would be better.

Now, maybe Roy is working on a plan of his own, like he did when he brought ME and FW in in the first place. But there's no indication of that. So ... until I've been given a better option, I'm inclined to go with the devil I know. And it's my bet that a lot of other people feel the same way.

 

[Tekneek]

I think Stanley Gold detailed many reasons why the BOD would stand behind Eisner. They are getting more money in salary and more stock just handed to them by keeping the same gravy train going. George Mitchell is getting even more money in salary and even more stock thrown at him than the rest of the BOD. That's why his comments are meaningless, because he has already been bought.

 

[raidermatt]

Of course the board stands by Eisner. They are there because of him, and those that have challenged him were stripped of power, or "removed".

I have seen rumors that there is more to RD's and Gold's moves than simply trying to make noise... that they do have some kind of plan. I honestly don't know if it is ultimately truly aimed at removing Eisner, or if it has other ends in mind.

I'm a believer in looking at history for an indication of what somebody will do in the future. Based on that, its highly unlikely that this is just some grumply old men moaning and groaning. That doesn't mean they will necessarily succeed in what they are trying to do, only that I'm reasonably confident they are going to try to do something.

At the same time, I understand that stockholders aren't going to call for ME's head tomorrow. Certainly RD and Gold know that as well. That's why they aren't calling for a proxy vote tomorrow. If their true goal is to change the top leadership at Disney, it will take time to put the plan together, and they wouldn't be able to execute parts of it until they resigned.

Remember how long it took last time, and Eisner is far more entrenched than Ron Miller was.

As for whether Eisner was bad from day 1 or not, its really not relevant now. Whether he was ineffective on day 1, or if he became ineffective in year 10, whatever.... its time.

For example, they grouse about no succession plan, but then push for Michael to leave. That doesn't make sense to me.

While the ideal is a clean transition with a clearly defined succession plan, ME's refusal to detail (or even outline) a succession plan should not be an excuse for him to remain in power indefinitely. Of course, that's exactly why he hasn't defined a succession plan....

They've spent years pushing for a succession plan and a satisfactory one has not been forthcoming. At some point, you have to push harder if you truly want anything to change.

 

[manning]

Eisners pay is intimately tied to the performance ($$$) of the company.

And how those numbers can be manipulated!!!!!!!

 

[caseymaureen]

Just a response about the CM's accountability...
Employee morale is extremely important, sometimes more so than pay rates or hours, etc. The morale of the lowest level employee, which I was in the college program and have been at several different companies, depends on their management and the customers. The morale of the customers and the management extends on up the chain to the very top, in this case, M.E. I went to work at WDW full of every bit of pixie dust and magic a person could have, and by the time I came home I realized that I could never work for this company again unless some extreme changes were made. I didn't like it, and I did leave. I stuck out a minimum wage job frying french fries and chicken fingers because I had every hope that the learning experience I had been promised would eventually show up. After 4 months I realized the "college program" as promised was not going to happen, but boy did I have a learning experience! When managers routinely take vacation or call in sick when their superiors will be making an inspection, for the sole purpose of letting their employees take the brunt of criticism, it really lets a person know how well managed the place is. When a person gets a work related burn, while working, and the managers try to convince them not to go to health services, it shows how much they care. I know from experience that it is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the "magic," when it seems like the people who are supposed to support your efforts to be a good CM spend all of their time working against you. But you keep hoping it will change. And maybe now it will.

This was my experience, but I am sure that it extends up into the ranks of the company to those of much higher pay levels and prestige levels than I had, but it still hurts performance of those effected. Everything from the maintenance to the CM attitude to the park hours, to the movies and animation, to the ABC lineup, goes up to the top, and these are the things that M.E is responsible for and why changes need to be made.

 

[Planecrazy4dis]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Doctor Evil comes to mind.
How can we get Roy back?

 

[civilized]

I used to be somewhat neutral on Eisner. I could appreciate the good things that he has done (like rescuing the company in '84'). But lately, he has become a worsening problem and no longer seems to be keeping true to Walt's vision. He appears to be paranoid and very self-interested. I thinks Roy's words ring true and it's a real shame that he has been essentially kicked to the curb because he disagreed with the great and powerful OZ.

As a stockholder, I definitely would not mind seeing Eisner leave soon as long a strong replacement can be found.

It's too bad that we can't bring Walt and Roy O. back.

 

[JeffH]

But he wasn't the visionary who decided to buy and develop so much land. Walt was

Walt's 'vision' for the (now WDW) land was EPCOT and only EPCOT. He planned to build a city of the future...no amusement parks, just a city...now that would have been fun!
Luckily he was talked into building the DL clone, Magic Kingdom to please the financers.