Eisner's Salary

[Sarangel]

This isn't really new news, but I thought it was interesting to see the analyses regarding his relative salary. From the SF Chronicle:

Michael Eisner will keep his $1 million annual salary as chief executive of The Walt Disney Co., although he no longer serves as board chairman, according to the company's quarterly report.

His compensation package still remains lower than those given to executives at Time Warner Inc. and Viacom Inc. The company disclosed his salary Thursday in its quarterly filing.

Eisner had been chairman and chief executive since 1984. His contract gave him the option to leave "for good reason," including if he was not retained as chairman.

In March, Disney's board stripped Eisner of his chairmanship after investors withheld 45 percent of votes cast from his re-election to the board.

Former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, who had been serving as presiding director of the board, was elected non-executive chairman.

The change in Eisner's status meant a new employment agreement had to be negotiated. Eisner's contract runs through 2006.

Under the amended employment contract, which became effective April 27, Eisner agreed "not to assert any right to terminate his employment" as a result of his removal as chairman.

The amended contract also specifies that Eisner will "retain the same duties and responsibilities, with the same scope of authority" that he had as chief executive under his previous deal.

By not mentioning the issue of salary, the amended contract leaves in place Eisner's base salary of $1 million.

Analysts said it was not unusual or unexpected that Eisner would retain his full salary, given that he has most of the same responsibilities to run the company he had before he was removed as chairman.

"As much criticism as Mr. Eisner is taking right now, his critics should realize a $1 million salary for a company of Disney's size is actually pretty low," said David Miller, an analyst at Sanders Morris Harris

Eisner received total compensation of $7.3 million in 2003, including a $6.25 million stock bonus.

That compares with the $19.9 million total compensation paid to Viacom Inc. chairman and chief executive Sumner Redstone and the $12.4 million package paid to Time Warner Inc. chairman and chief executive Richard Parsons, according to the companies' filings.

Redstone received $3.99 million salary, including deferred compensation, while Parsons' base salary is $1.5 million.

 

[dcentity2000]

Whatever your thoughts of Eisner, it's more than a little annoying that the action undertaken by his peers appears to have been superficial at best. If I read that correctly, nothing has really changed except his job title.



Rich::

 

[Cricket2]

If he worked a 40 hour work week without any vacation time at all he is making almost a dollar per second or 58.49/minute.

like him or not, no one is worth that much unless they are saving lives.

JC

 

[Chuck S]

Originally posted by WebmasterCricket
If he worked a 40 hour work week without any vacation time at all he is making almost a dollar per second or 58.49/minute.

like him or not, no one is worth that much unless they are saving lives.

JC

Unfortunately, professional sports players often make in excess of that for PLAYING A GAME! And people are still willing to pay ridiculously high prices to enter an arena or stadium to watch a 3 hour game. Dollar for dollar, I find Disney parks much more enjoyable.

Since Michael's salary isn't out of line with other similar positions, and who ever eventually replaces him will also probably be making similar $$$, I don't have a problem with it. Why single him out from the rest of the group?

 

[Captain Crook]

Webmaster Cricket, what must you think of athelete's and entertainers then?

 

[Micca]

I would say there is no comparison between sports stars and corporate executives. The corporate guys don't score as many chicks

 

[King Triton]

Michael Eisner is way over paid. Nothing has changed but his title. What ashame. All the stockholders should be very mad.

 

[dcentity2000]

I guess that given the rest of the crowd he's not all that overpaid - his bonus I think is said to be lower than the usual? I was remarking on how there was no change in wages or in duty despite change of job title - I thought that made the action [taken by the board] appear somewhat superfluous.

On the issue of overpaid sports stars - yuch. David Beckham is the paradigm of this sort of thing - I just hope that at least some of their obscene salaries are passed on to the needy and less fortunate. If they don't bother even with this or do so but only to an extent whereby the whole issue becomes laughable I feel that those concerned should be rightfully ashamed of themselves.



Rich::

 

[WDSearcher]

It's all relative. If the analysts had all come out saying that this was something that was NEVER done, or that he was grossly overpaid based on people in similar jobs, then people can gripe about the salary. But that's clearly not the case here. Eisner is in the same ballpark as his peers -- lower than some -- and analysts have said that it's not unusual that he was kept at the same salary, even with the loss of the chairmanship. Now, if they'd have given him a raise, that would have been cause for concern.

 

[DisneyDude10171]

All the stockholders should be very mad.

Here's one angry stockholder /