Finally! A word from Diane Disney!

[Luv2Roam]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_latimes/disneydaughtersayseisnershouldleave

 

[lodgelady]

Thanks for the post. It is interesting to hear Diane's view on the situation. It is telling that even she thinks that Eisner will not step down willingly....

 

[Chuck S]

She didn't have a lot of kind words for Cousin Roy, though.

 

[dcentity2000]

Did Eisner & Roy both give her the old heave-ho, or is just that my imagination?

I know she doesn't like either of them that much...





Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

"It's time to step down and let someone else come in for the future," Diane Disney Miller said in an interview. "New leadership is necessary. I think Michael Eisner did some great things for the company but there also are some not so great things.

...

During her interview with The Times, Miller, 70, distanced herself from what she called a "vicious and personal" campaign being led by her cousin, former board member Roy E. Disney, aimed at Eisner's immediate ouster.

...

She said the abrupt removal of Eisner could cause the stock price to plunge, making the Burbank-based entertainment conglomerate vulnerable to Comcast Corp.'s recent unsolicited $49-billion takeover bid."



I like this woman She's intelligent and dislikes both indiscriminatley





Rich::

 

[Chuck S]

I wonder what Roy would think if Cousin Diane or one of her kids were brought in by the board?

 

[raidermatt]

From a shareholder, or even fan point of view, this shouldn't be about anyone's personal conflicts. Either Roy vs. Mike, Roy vs. Diane, Eisner vs. the World, whatever. Yes, we know that probably plays into their decisions, but when we step back and look at things, none of it matters.

If Diane Disney wants to jump into the fray, and bring stronger management to Disney, great. Let's hear it.

But as much as Roy is panned for not doing enough over the last 10 years, she has done even less. I don't expect that to change now.

So we are back to Eisner not being the right guy, and only Roy doing anything at all of substance to change that.

 

[crusader]

Diane Disney speaks my language.

She's in support of independence and refused to support Roy on the vote issue because of the vulnerability to the company. Excellent move.

She sees him as strategically fueling the takeover which I agree absolutely on.

She is truly in favor of Disney the company with no personal vendetta. That's what we need here and I'm glad to hear her finally speak out.

I also agree that Eisner needs to plan an exit without an abrupt removal and the company is wise to allow for that. 2006 is enough time to groom a successor.

Once again the stronger genetics appear to prove out.

 

[GrimGhost]

She also said "... Roy loves the company as much as I do, and he wants to see it remain independent too. ...."

Atleast they agree on motive, but not strategy or 'tactics' as Roy put it.

 

[GrimGhost]

Crusader, I am afraid I have to disagree with you on your last point.

TWDC would not even BE, were it not for Roy's father Roy O..HE saw to it the money was there to realize WDW and saw the project through to completion-just prior to his own death.

 

[crusader]

GrimGhost -

You got me! It was a cheap shot and I will graciously retract it.

I wonder what the vote tally would have been if Diane's position hit the airwaves prior to the annual meeting.

 

[GrimGhost]

Crusader, I agree with you 100% on the other points.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
If Diane Disney wants to jump into the fray, and bring stronger management to Disney, great. Let's hear it.

But as much as Roy is panned for not doing enough over the last 10 years, she has done even less. I don't expect that to change now.

I don't think she wants to "jump into the fray." I think her maiden name is Disney and someone at a news agency asked her the question. It didn't appear as though she sought out an interview. I think she'd have been perfectly happy to have stayed off everyone's radar, but it was inevitable that she'd get asked.

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by crusader
Diane Disney speaks my language.

She's in support of independence and refused to support Roy on the vote issue because of the vulnerability to the company. Excellent move.

She sees him as strategically fueling the takeover which I agree absolutely on.

I think she could not be more wrong when she suggests that the push to remove Eisner makes Disney more vulnerable. Comcast in it's initial bid and recent statements, said that current managegment cannot produce satisfactory results and used managements failings the last 10 years a primary reason for taking over the company. I think Eisner makes Disney a more inviting target because a takeover partner knows that 50% of stockholders already opose management.

 

[airlarry!]

Crusader, how does your points jive with Michael Ei$ner's intent to sell the company before Mr. Disney got involved?

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by mrtoadslastride
I think Eisner makes Disney a more inviting target because a takeover partner knows that 50% of stockholders already opose management.

Yes, but those stockholders oppose management because they want to "save Disney" -- which to pretty much every one of those 50% also means that Disney remains independent and doesn't end up being bought by anyone. Many, many people hold Disney stock because they have an emotional connection, not because they want to hit an earnings target. (Although that's nice too. ) A 50% vote against ME doesn't translate to Comcast having an easier time.

 

[PKS44]

The day Eisner leaves this stock breaks $30 a share, easily...how does that make it more vulnerable to a takeover?

 

[crusader]

Crusader, how does your points jive with Michael Ei$ner's intent to sell the company before Mr. Disney got involved?

Where is that reported? The only "source" I've ever heard even mention it was AV.

PKS44 -

$30/share may only be a temporary spike, and would still fall below what Comcast is trading at. What if that sparks additional trading while the board shifts players more favorable to a big payoff?

The company quickly turns back in play if it can't expand holdings.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by PKS44
The day Eisner leaves this stock breaks $30 a share, easily...how does that make it more vulnerable to a takeover?

OK ... but what about the next day?

If Eisner leaves without a solid plan in place for replacing him (if Eisner were to do what Roy and Stanley want him to do and leave NOW), the stock may jump, but it's not going to stay up there for long. All Comcast will see is a company without a leader, and that translates to vulnerability. And the longer it takes to FIND a leader, the less likely the stock is to stay up. Plus, the person who steps into the spot after ME leaves will be expected to deliver change immediately. Mostly because the public and the press have been told so often that all it will take to turn Disney around is a change in leadership. If that new person cannot make a difference quickly -- the expectations, after all, are very high -- then the stock isn't going to stay at $30 a share. Disney stock, while not being through-the-roof these days, has if nothing else remained steady through all of this, allowing Disney to continue to hold off Comcast. If the switch between Eisner and non-Eisner is done simply for the sake of him being gone without the proper thought to what happens the day after, then the stock will fluctuate with each decision, and it will be closer to takeover time.

 

[dcentity2000]

Seeing that 40% of shareholders oppose the CEO is one thing...

Seeing that the CEO is not strong enough to stand up to the dissidents is quite another and as Diane Disney pointed out could reflect weakness within the company and incur further incentive to hostile companies to takeover...

The management team should be seen to be strong more than it should be seen to be popular from a purely strategic point of view; of course both factors are very desireable



Rich::