How Much Turmoil Is Disney Really In? Please Read!

[crusader]

It's more complicated than that.

One ploy is a consent solicitation which although Comcast is releasing statements saying they won't initiate, it appears to be a fake warning shot.

This is not a simple game. It's a big gamble and WallSteet will become a critical player using the shareholder's message as a pawn.

If I can find some great legal information to outline the plot I'll link it. Meanwhile here's a brief synopsis:

http://www.ffhsj.com/cmemos/0033413.htm

 

[married@wdw]

I don't have time to research this, but isn't a consent solicitation by Comcast just another way for Comcast to ask Disney shareholders for "consent" to do takeover or place "merger friendly" members on the board, or whatever their plan may be? So it's still all in the shareholders hands. It still takes time. And it wouldn't be the only option out there.

Like I said before, if Comcast keeps the deal as is, "Wall Street" won't go for it. And I don't think they have anything to sweeten the pot with, as they're still working out the finishing touches of the AT&T Broadband merger. If Comcast finds a way to sweeten the pot, well, then I'll want to look at what they've got to offer before I cast my votes.

On an aside, I've read a lot about Steve Burke (V.P. at Comcast, previously a 12 year Disney veteran) recently, going all the way back to the opening of the first Disney Store. While I hate the idea of Disney being owned by someone else, I think Burke has the core business values Eisner is lacking, and Disney needs.

 

[crusader]

I'm out of time right now as well but hopefully we'll take it up again from here.

One quick point has to do with who the affecting "shareholders" truly are. They aren't the individuals here or the minority being solicited by Roy. They're the large holdings via Funds et al.

A no confidence vote will be used by the hostile company to demonstrate failure in management and poor governance and provide heavy leverage to lobby the controlling interests for consent.

Wallstreet recommendations become politicized and extremely vital as the 20% pawn is spun to put pressure on key investors combined with a more salacious offer.

You're little proxy becomes obsolete at this point.

 

[married@wdw]

The main thrust of my point was, I don't believe a more "salacious offer" exists. According to everything I've read, Comcast just doesn't have the finances available to make the offer any better. And the offer is what really matters to the heavyhitting shareholders.

 

[married@wdw]

Originally posted by crusader
You're little proxy becomes obsolete at this point.

In re-reading your comments, I also feel the need to point out that you have no idea how many shares I, or anyone else reading this, controls. Don't make assumptions.

 

[crusader]

Sorry -

Didn't mean to imply that. Thanks for keeping things in check.

I disagree with you that a more salacious offer is not coming. This is only round one. Comcast needs a network to proceed with their expansion plans and they have every intention of pursuing this as aggressively as possible.

 

[raidermatt]

A no confidence vote will be used by the hostile company to demonstrate failure in management and poor governance and provide heavy leverage to lobby the controlling interests for consent.

Conversely, a vote of confidence strengthens Eisner's position and likely relegates Roy to the role of Grumpy 'Ole Man.

A no confidence vote opens up more options, which in the end, is a good thing, considering the staus quo.

Eisner's not staying anyway.

On another thread you said you thought he would announce a succession plan and likely remain in power for "quite some time". Does this mean your opinion has changed? That's fine of course, because we should constantly reevaluate as we receive new info. I'm just curious as to what info caused the change? Is it the things you posted about what Comcast is up to?

 

[crusader]

On another thread you said you thought he would announce a succession plan and likely remain in power for "quite some time". Does this mean your opinion has changed?

No. I believe an announcement will be enough to demonstrate he's leaving. I don't see it happening overnight which is why I proposed it would be structured as a succession plan.

My concern with the no confidence is really all about Comcast. I blame Roy for inviting this and frankly, I don't see how he can adequately inform anybody about the reality of the situation given how entrenched he is with the campaign. Remember the vote isn't simply being lobbyied toward the CEO. It's against several members of the board.

WallStreet is very sensitive. If this takes off what do you think will happen to the share price?

That's exactly where the hostile takeover kicks in. That's where Comcast has to move this and why a failure of the no confidence becomes significant to this maneuver. If it were just an Eisner issue that'd be one thing - but that's not the groundwork being laid out.

I've been informed to prepare for a monster planning to takeover who isn't going to take no for an answer.

 

[raidermatt]

Here's my problem...

Without a "no confidence" vote, Roy's alternatives, whoever they maybe, do not materialize.

If Comcast isn't going to take no, and is willing to be patient, I don't see Eisner/Iger as stopping it. (assuming Iger is the successor... from what I've heard, while he is liked, but analysts/investors are wary of giving him the keys). Unless they start doing things detrimental to the company, like assuming debt.

I'd really like the chance to see who Roy/Stan can come up with, cosidering the other options.

Of course, I'm also of the opinion that Comcast is a better option than Eisner/Iger. I want Disney to remain independent, but only with the proper management. I can see how disagreeing with that would change your perspective.

 

[crusader]

Iger represents the path of least resistence in the interim. He's not the solution long term by any means.

You support a Comcast regime. I emphatically don't. I have a pretty good understanding of how they operate and it makes Disney's practices look like child's play.

They are only in it to build a media empire because regulatory reform is on the horizon and the landscape for distribution is dramatically shifting as shown with the recent NewsCorp merger. They will do whatever it takes to build the necessary cash reserves to accomplish their goals and that includes a pretty distasteful employee management system.

Disney won't survive this and it kills all chances to tap into the direct programming market which is what makes their network so appealing.