I think we all agree it's time for ME to go, BUT.....

[KNWVIKING]

.... does that mean we root against Disney to hasten his departure ?

A boycott has already been discussed here, but I'm talking about all things Disney. Do we hope Home on the Range is a monumental flop ? That ABC continues to wallow around in 4th place ? The stock price drops ? Do we hope that everything that can go wrong,does go wrong ? Does a true fan of Disney want the worst for Disney right now if it means ME is gone faster ?

 

[Chuck S]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
A boycott has already been discussed here, but I'm talking about all things Disney. Do we hope Home on the Range is a monumental flop ? That ABC continues to wallow around in 4th place ? The stock price drops ? Do we hope that everything that can go wrong,does go wrong ? Does a true fan of Disney want the worst for Disney right now if it means ME is gone faster ?

Eisner has a 2 year contract. For him to depart earlier will require negotiation, or he must leave "voluntarily". I fail to see how a boycott, poor movie performance, poor stock performance, and/or poor ABC ratings will hasten that process.

 

[Snowgod]

MEs contract is already void as he has been removed from the chairmans job.
That is why they are redoing it

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"I fail to see how a boycott, poor movie performance, poor stock performance, and/or poor ABC ratings will hasten that process."***

The worse Disney does, the worse it will make ME appear, the easier it will be to have him remove. I'm sure that somewhere in his contract there is a performance clause.

But maybe I'm trying to make my point the wrong way. Look at it this way: If Disney grows at the 30 percent level that ME predicts, how will we ever get rid of him then ?

 

[raidermatt]

There's really two questions there Vike.

One is the question of rooting/hoping. On that front, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If Disney puts out product the public likes, it will succeed. If they don't, it won't. What we hope it does won't matter a bit. Its sort of the answer to "be careful what you wish for." Its either going to happen or not going to happen no matter what we wish.

But the second question is whether to actually use our purchase decisions to try to influence the outcome. That's a little tougher, because each person does have a real impact, even if its small.

You've just got to boil it down to one of two paths:

"Boycott" because you fee strongly that Disney is not putting out the products it is capable of, and you want to send a financial message about what you think will make money, and what you want to support as a consumer. If there was ever a time when our collective purchasing power could send a message, its now.

Don't boycott because you are happy enough with what Disney creates/distributes now, and in the end, just don't care that much if they ever get better. That's not a knock on anyone who takes that route... after all, it is just a company.

 

[raidermatt]

The worse Disney does, the worse it will make ME appear, the easier it will be to have him remove. I'm sure that somewhere in his contract there is a performance clause.

Exactly, though contracts were made for buying out.

Eisner is under a lot of pressure to meet those growth numbers he essentially promised. If they fall short, its going to increase the already intense pressure.

If Disney grows at the 30 percent level that ME predicts, how will we ever get rid of him then ?

Very true. Ordinarily, I'd say that if somebody is meeting 30% growth targets, we should be asking why should we even want to get rid of him. But this is not an ordinary situation. The only reason Disney can make such aggressive projections is that they've been producing so poorly for such a long time. Even in the booming economy of the late 90's, they had trouble growing revenue.

The unfortunate thing is that too many people are focused on the short term, so a few good quarters can get them back on Eisner's bandwagon. As I've said before, if the targets are met, I'm just hoping there are enough folks who are too sharp to get duped into thinking that's good enough.

 

[Chuck S]

Originally posted by Snowgod
MEs contract is already void as he has been removed from the chairmans job.
That is why they are redoing it

Renegotiating or changing PART of a contract does not necessarily void the entire contract.

 

[KNWVIKING]

But Matt, with regards to ME, there are two issues. One is purely $$$, the other is "getting it". Obviously ME does not "get it", but that won't cause him to lose his job. $$$ will. There are more then enough casual fans of Disney to keep the theme parks profitable, so his lack of "getting it" is no immediate threat to losing the cash cow. As fickle as TV is, and giving that the gap between 1st & 4th is actually very small, ABC could easily be number 1 for no other reason then NBC ending "Friends" and "Frasier". ME doesn't have to do anything new or better, but ABC could suddenly be #1 or #2 (and no, I'm not talking bodily functions). Given the nature of the movie business, I think HotR will in the end be profitable, regardless of it's quality.

See in the end it all comes down to $$$. We here on the boards may hate what ME has become, but we don't count. Are we in a Catch 22 predictament where we want Disney to be grand again, but not if it means ME is at the helm ?

(Matt, this post was meant to follow your first post.)

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
You've just got to boil it down to one of two paths:

"Boycott" because you fee strongly that Disney is not putting out the products it is capable of, and you want to send a financial message about what you think will make money, and what you want to support as a consumer. If there was ever a time when our collective purchasing power could send a message, its now.

Don't boycott because you are happy enough with what Disney creates/distributes now, and in the end, just don't care that much if they ever get better. That's not a knock on anyone who takes that route... after all, it is just a company.

What about the middle ground? Don't boycott, but do attend, buy and support those things that Disney makes and does that you consider to be solid quality product worthy of the Disney name.

Your choices are very black & white -- it's either all or nothing. Why? I may decide not to spend money on "Country Bears - The Movie", but if I follow your choice #1, that means I have to also not spend money on "Lilo & Stitch" or "Finding Nemo" in order to send a message. Yet ... if I do that, how will Disney know that I think "Lilo" is a good solid product, while I think "Bears" is not? All that does is tell them that I dislike all Disney films, which isn't true.

Likewise, if I buy a Disney snowglobe, then your choice #2 would have you believe that simply because I have purchased one Disney product, I am in favor of ALL Disney product that is out there. Which is also not true.

I agree with the idea of "voting with your wallet", but if the point is to indicate to Disney what we, as consumers, think is good and what we think is bad, then we have to actually spend money or time or effort on those things we think are good. We can't simply go out there and not buy anything, or the message is lost.

 

[Planogirl]

Besides if Disney does well, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're providing a quality product. There are people that enjoy Jerry Springer and the National Enquirer and so on but of course these wouldn't be considered quality products by most people. The casual fans wouldn't boycott, it would only be the devout fans and I'm not sure that enough of those would boycott to make much of a difference.

 

[DancingBear]

I could see a scenario where the company does well in 2004, some sort of succession planning is put in place, and Eisner is able to ride off into the sunset saying, "See, we've had a great last two years, I righted the ship after the 9-11 hit to the business, and now I can leave (with a boatload of cash)."

 

[BRERALEX]

I could see a scenario where the company does poorly in 2004 and 2005 and Eisner will ride off into the sunset saying, "See, we've had a great last two years, I righted the ship after the 9-11 hit to the business, and now I can leave (with a boatload of cash)." lolol come on that was funny

 

[KNWVIKING]

...I know "lol" is laughing out loud, but what is lolol.....you've been using that alolot lately ?

 

[BRERALEX]

um well lolol means laugingoutloudlaughingoutloud bad aol habit lol

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by Chuck S
Renegotiating or changing PART of a contract does not necessarily void the entire contract.

Again, I'm not sure about in the US but...

In the UK, it usually does. Failure to perform can if not provided for by an exclusion or limitation clause cause breach of contract, to which there are various remedies.

Courts occasionally will either 'cut' an anomolous term from a contract if there is due cause to (rare) and may sometimes even attempt a purposive interpretation to the contract.

As this may be regarded as a fundamental breach (I'd have to see the contract to be sure) the two parties must have mutually agreed to quit said contract and restructure their legal relations.

I'm leaving a lot out, but I'm tired, at home instead of my working environment and full of cheese



Rich::

 

[raidermatt]

What about the middle ground? Don't boycott, but do attend, buy and support those things that Disney makes and does that you consider to be solid quality product worthy of the Disney name.

There's nothing wrong with that.

However, if this is what you've been doing all along, there is no change. No message is sent about your disapproval of recent events. Its status quo for you.

Besides just telling Disney which products it should be producing and which it shouldn't, there's also a message to be sent to their management overall that we've had enough. By Wall Street standards, you've been voted out of office, yet you're still there, playing games trying to save your hide.

Its a question of whether you think its now time to consciously send a message, not just let your wallet speak for your usual likes and dislikes.

Again, your approach makes perfect sense as far as making a statement about what you like and don't like in the long run. Its just that things could be coming to a head now, and it wouldn't hurt to turn up the heat a bit.

 

[dcentity2000]

Don't care

Still gonna go to WDW

Until such time as one side or t'other attempts to put a hit out on me, I shall continue to sit primly on the fence like nothing's happening.

O' course, I'll still post madly on these boards, chipping in with my 2 cents... or should it be tuppence? Just because I'm not fussed enough to demonstrate against anything doesn't mean I'm too disinterested not to engage in healthy nattering on t'internet



Rich::

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by dcentity2000
In the UK, it usually does. Failure to perform can if not provided for by an exclusion or limitation clause cause breach of contract, to which there are various remedies.

That's true in the U.S., as well, but, just to get the terminology straight, that wouldn't "void" the contract.

Second, I think in this case it's not a "breach" by the employer, but a specific clause which would give Eisner the right to terminate. Eisner's contract says he "shall be employed by Company as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer." And it says

Executive shall have the right to terminate his employment under this Agreement upon 30 days' notice to Company given within 60 days following the occurrence of any of the following events, each of which shall constitute "good
reason" for such termination:

(i) Executive is not elected or retained as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and a director of Company...

If Eisner terminates under this Section, he is entitled to a big payout.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by DancingBear
That's true in the U.S., as well, but, just to get the terminology straight, that wouldn't "void" the contract.

Actually, most of the time it would. Remedies are available to the aggrieved party including damages, termination and continuing. Having just done quite a large thesis upon the subject you can guess just how reluctant I'm going to be to elaborate on that!

Second, I think in this case it's not a "breach" by the employer, but a specific clause which would give Eisner the right to terminate. Eisner's contract says he "shall be employed by Company as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer."

Big payouts will probably be listed under a limitation clause somewhere in the contract. Of course, most contracts can be worked around - in this case, though, Id guess that both parties have agreed to a breach and a termination, followed by immediate renewal with no transitional stage. Weird, huh? But it works



Rich::

 

[crusader]

See in the end it all comes down to $$$. We here on the boards may hate what ME has become, but we don't count. Are we in a Catch 22 predictament where we want Disney to be grand again, but not if it means ME is at the helm ?

Hopefully not for the next two years. I want this company to increase shareholder value right now and try to meet the targeted 30% which will strengthen the stock.

I don't want to see a mutiny battling for several years which continues to weaken the company while attempting to overthrow several key positions during a hostile takeover situation.

Comcast worked for more than two years to overtake AT&T Broadband. Roberts is waiting for a more favorable management team at Disney to be in place combined with a weaker trading price to seize this opportunity.

We have to be careful about what is really going on and what it is the shareholders truly want. I believe they want reform but not at the expense of being taken over.

So where does that leave us?