How Much Turmoil Is Disney Really In? Please Read!

[married@wdw]

Chuck S --

I'm not a frequent reader of the boards and this is the first and only thread I've read on this subject. I'm sure I read Roy or Stan's quote in an article -- probably Associated Press. I'm a research librarian and am very frustrated that I can't find it now.

As for "looking at Apple", I AM looking at Apple -- I wish Disney could be half as classy and well run. Steve was brought back to Apple (after being booted out) and he saved the company which he originally built. Apple is a company I have great respect for -- their products and services are top-notch, cutting edge and their staff is amazing. They have the quality and concern for their customers that is lacking at Disney right now. And Apple's profits are souring again this year thanks to those cutting edge products and services!

And might I also point out that he IS the business leader of both Apple and Pixar -- built them from the ground up in both cases. And these are two companies that do it right -- as Disney well knows thanks to the millions they've made thanks to Pixar! Steve gets it -- the creative side AND the bottom line need to come together to make the company work.

 

[raidermatt]

Mr. S., there is no "leap of faith" involved here.

Nobody will be elected to the board without shareholder approval.

If Roy and Stan start touting The Great Gonzo (at least show him the proper respect by using his well deserved title), he won't replace anybody on the board without a vote.

 

[married@wdw]

Chuck S. --

Sorry Chuck, it was the NY Post and it was to have Steve actually taking Eisner's job as head of the company, not the board. I don't like to post copyrighted info, but you should be able to get to the article here:

http://www.nypost.com/business/17338.htm

 

[airlarry!]

Mr. S:

So, in essence, you voted "with confidence" for Ei$ner's slate of officers on the basis that you have no confidence in Mr. Disney's ability to provide a better choice of officers.

I would never ridicule another's choice here. Each person who has a share has invested hard earned money into buying that share, and they have the right to vote in any fashion they please.

However, your post

I would possibly have been persuaded to vote no if I had known just what direction Roy hoped to steer the company, or those he would possibly select from to nominate to the board. As for now, he is asking us to vote for pixie dust, and pixie dust does NOT build or sustain a corporation.

is disingenous at best. Should this vote succeed in reaching 35%, you WILL know who Mr. Disney thinks would be better suited than Cou$in Mikey to run the company. A vote like yours actually succeeds in prohibiting that information from being known.

Even if, hypothetically speaking, you desire Cou$in Mikey's continued reign (as I believe your posts suggest), wouldn't you like to have the opportunity to see if there is somebody better out there? Somebody who is willing to stick his/her neck out, but only if there is a real possibility of election?

 

[Chuck S]

Raidermatt,

There is indeed a "leap of faith". Savedisney is asking for a NO vote so that they may in the future nominate another slate of board members. No, the current board can not be replaced without approval...but, gee, wouldn't it be nice for the stockholders to have SOME IDEA of who those nominees MAY be prior to giving Eisner a no confidence vote. While Eisner is NOT perfect, we KNOW what we are getting...rather than sending the company through the expense of additional stockholder elections for a still unknown possible slate of officers.

I've been to the parks recently (Early December), they were clean, new attractions are being added. Restrooms were serviced and operating, food was good, CMs were as nice and cordial as ever. Again, Roy does NOT outline any plans AT ALL for how to accomplish any of his "goals" of "restoring the magic".

All of this discussion is really moot, since I doubt any of us have the neccessary investment to sway the election. It will be up to MAJOR investors, not folks that frequent these boards.

 

[Chuck S]

"Should this vote succeed in reaching 35%, you WILL know who Mr. Disney thinks would be better suited than Cou$in Mikey"

And Roy won't name ANY possible nominees now because.....?

 

[married@wdw]

Originally posted by Chuck S
"Should this vote succeed in reaching 35%, you WILL know who Mr. Disney thinks would be better suited than Cou$in Mikey"

And Roy won't name ANY possible nominees now because.....?

I'm sorry, but I think it would completely unethical for Roy/Stan to name names before the vote. It puts those people in a very awkward position as they will certainly be approached by the media the second their name is mentioned. And if Eisner wins the vote, he's likely to hold a grudge against anyone named, which could effect their current employment/business.

I think that's why Stan Gold was willing to comment on Steve Jobs but wouldn't name others in the article I posted -- Steve already has a horrible relationship with Eisner. Certainly can't make it any worse.

 

[raidermatt]

Most likely because nobody would want to go out on a limb right now. What if somebody comes out, and then Eisner only gets a 10% no vote? They would have wasted their time, made some enemies, and looked like a fool in general.

Better to wait and see if there is real shareholder support for a change.

I think its borderline ridiculous to think that Roy/Stan have no idea who they want. They maybe having trouble getting committments, but should the vote go ill for Eisner, I doubt that will continue to be a problem.

Unless you are really in Eisner's corner regardless, its worth the 'no' vote to find out.

 

[Chuck S]

And plans on just how to go about restoring the "pixie dust", most of which would NOT require specific names, but a general outline? No word on that either.

 

[lrdgrifter]

Originally posted by Chuck S
And plans on just how to go about restoring the "pixie dust", most of which would NOT require specific names, but a general outline? No word on that either.

My suggestion to you would be to visit savedisney.com and take a look at the point-by-point presentation that they've prepared. Stick with the presentation until the very end, where they give a general outline of the first planned steps in fixing Disney.

It's there, you just have to look!

 

[Goofyposter]

Chuck S.

......but, gee, wouldn't it be nice for the stockholders to have SOME IDEA of who those nominees MAY be prior to giving Eisner a no confidence vote.

When the board goes to add new members to fill vacancies there is no meaningful sharehold input. I don't see why at this point, without the ability to even propose anyone as a slate, Mr. Disney should have to act any differently than Mr. Ei$ner in these matters.

All of this discussion is really moot, since I doubt any of us have the neccessary investment to sway the election. It will be up to MAJOR investors, not folks that frequent these boards.

Well, you never really know for sure about this do you?

 

[Chuck S]

Originally posted by lrdgrifter
My suggestion to you would be to visit savedisney.com and take a look at the point-by-point presentation that they've prepared. Stick with the presentation until the very end, where they give a general outline of the first planned steps in fixing Disney.

It's there, you just have to look!

If you refer to the "Action Plan to Restore Shareholder Value" it says NOTHING tangible about HOW to accomplish anything.

 

[crusader]

Better to wait and see if there is real shareholder support for a change.

That's not what's going on behind the scenes. Roberts and Burke have every intention of attending the meeting and going directly at the shareholders.

Since Eisner doesn't appear to be in favor of this, I suspect Roy has something to do with it. The plan is Burke succeeds Eisner and Comcast takes over.

I would strongly caution everyone to carefully consider the consequences before proceeding to vote for removal.

 

[airlarry!]

Sometimes I really wonder if Ei$ner hasn't been in on this whole Comcast thing from the start.

Scare the natives! Bad men coming! Don't vote me out! I'm your fearless leader! Without me, you will all die!

I say, neither Ei$ner nor Comcast is what this company needs. And the track record for both Ei$ner and Comcast speak for themselves.

Mr. Disney's got a plan, and I'll bet it doesn't include Comcast. Let's hope Ei$ner's scare tactics don't succeed, and Comcast's greed and ego don't win the day.

 

[Chuck S]

If Roy has a plan, why is he only shooting for 20% of the vote "to send a message"? Sounds like Eisner isn't the only one with a perceived ego problem.

By the sounds of his own press release, Roy does NOT want Eisner to reach the critical 35% no vote.

 

[Goofyposter]

If Roy has a plan, why is he only shooting for 20% of the vote "to send a message"? Sounds like Eisner isn't the only one with a perceived ego problem. By the sounds of his own press release, Roy does NOT want Eisner to reach the critical 35% no vote.

Chuck S.....I think you're seeing this all wrong. I think the SaveDisney group, as with any group politic, doesn't want to over state expectations - and I think they also have never seen the 03/04 shareholders meeting as the 'end all' event towards the goal.
The movement has not had a enough time (yet) to fully engague and discuss their positions with the institutional shareholder base - they know this - so to say publicly that they'd like to reach a 20% response level considering the amount of time that they've had is reasonable.

 

[crusader]

Mr. Disney's got a plan, and I'll bet it doesn't include Comcast. Let's hope Ei$ner's scare tactics don't succeed, and Comcast's greed and ego don't win the day.

Mr. Disney got caught in a war he didn't expect and had three short months to turn the tide. That leads to haste.

That also leads to vulnerability. Comcast is holding meetings on this every single day. Apparently, Burke has an axe to grind with Eisner and they're using whatever resources they can to takeover. They will be at the meeting. They are telling their employees to buy into their options plan to get more cash. Every major financial institution in Phila is soliciting. The city is involved as well.

Remember Roberts doesn't need a shareholder's consent here. Only Disney does. And Roberts took AT&T Broadband in a very similar manner. The only saving grace would be Mitchell's influence in Washington.

When Roy made his complimentary statements about Stephen, I got suspicious. I'm not convinced in reading his website that he's got this unquestionably brilliant succession plan which doesn't involve another corp taking the reigns.

We have to be better informed as to the result before blindly jumping on a save Roy campaign right now. Eisner's not staying anyway.

 

[married@wdw]

Originally posted by crusader
I would strongly caution everyone to carefully consider the consequences before proceeding to vote for removal.

I'd like to remind everyone that a vote to withhold is just that -- to withhold your decision until you see what other options might be available. It is NOT a vote for removal, but basically, a vote for another vote with more choices. If Comcast is my only other choice, I will most likely vote for Eisner. Much like politics, it's frequently voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

[crusader]

married@wdw -

You're right about the removal issue and thank you for pointing that out.

The problem with your approach to the "given the choices" issue is the voting sequence.

The first order of business will most likely be the vote regarding the current board. If the no confidence succeeds then the company is wide open and that's when Roy will surface.

At that point the vote has already been cast leaving shareholders to now quickly decide on alternatives without a clear understanding of the consequences surrounding the "new" board which aren't going to be presented in a manner which allow you to carefully weigh options.

It's chaos that can lead to a very risky situation with a player like Comcast waiting in the wings - particularly if Roberts or Burke are named as candidates.

 

[married@wdw]

crusader --

I tend to disagree. While the first order of business will be the board vote, a vote of no confidence still leaves everything in shareholder hands -- and there would still be board members in place. Roy can "surface" at this point and take his ideas to the shareholders, but he has the right as a shareholder to do that anyway. And nothing can be decided at the meeting, as all shareholders would need the opportunity to vote on any new matters of business. Time would have to be taken for new nominations to the board, new proxies mailed, etc. It would be a months long process. I believe there will be plenty of time for shareholders to look at all the options and decide what's best from here.

Comcast would have the opportunity to speak up in this case as well -- go straight to the voter -- but they have the right to do that anyway. And if Comcast's offer remains the same, no one will vote for them because the deal is too low.