It's funny...I'm returning to the boards after a pretty long layoff, and one of the first threads I stumble across is the re-re-re-rehash of the same conversation about Marvel in WDW we've been having SINCE Disney bought Marvel.
I side with the contract...and the fact it's set up in perpetuity, with no expiration date, no additional cost to Uni (other than their annual licensing fee and the merch cut they send off), and no way for Disney to terminate unless Uni lets things fall, almost literally, to poo (which they won't do).
Disney has no leverage. Uni has no real impetus to offload. Disney gets free checks from Uni. Uni gets relatively cheap use of a huge (and getting huger) property.
I'm firmly in the camp of thinking the number Disney would have to float to Uni to get Marvel "back" would be 10 figures (that's right, the "b" word). That's not bashing, that's not a disgruntled opinion of Disney. That's looking at the contract, looking at the current business climate/relationship/benefits, looking at Uni's current IOA setup and using some commonly held public history about redevelopment/development in a theme park (like, for example, the costs of the DCA project, or the reported costs of
Legoland) and coming up with a number.
You look at that number, add to it the costs DISNEY would incur, in addition, to develop attraction at WDW, and the general time frame it would take Disney to actually get attractions built (not to mention: there's question over whether you CAN actually see a marked increase in WDW attendance, and not just a redistribution, based on vacation costs, average vacation length in the US (which hasn't moved in a couple decades), and other factors)....and the numbers just don't seem to add up. I honestly believe the investors would revolt if Iger greenlit that kind of outlay of cash (and it would have to be cash, because Uni has no interest in owning Disney stock). It might actually be MORE cost effective to buy Uni parks and resorts OUTRIGHT...and I don't think THATS on the horizen, either.