New Disney park in Branson?

[Dis13]

Through a Missouri Secretary of State business entity search:

https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Corp.asp?2028613

http://www.sos.mo.gov/imaging/16263702.pdf

Why would they file for a Ficticious Name? Is that something that's normally done?

(and thanks for the links!)

 

[phalynx]

Me too Bubba! Like someone said, Texas has had the same rumor going for years. I even doubt a DVC, it took forever for them to sell HH and VB.

Many of these rumors are partially true. Disney owns land all over the country. They are investments ad stages for future projects should they ever decide to branch out. Disney has money and makes really good decisions on land purchases.

If Disney waited until a place was popular, they would never be able to purchase he land, price and size. Disney vowed to never again be locked into land like Disneyland.

 

[tony609]

I guess I will add my 2 cents too!

One thing I read was the Walt Disney Co. was considering opening Downtown Disney type shopping areas in heavy tourist areas... The shopping areas would be modeled after the 2 exsisting locations with World of Disney stores and other shopping venues along with resturaunts and perhaps a movie complex. Added to this possible venture was the addition of a small theme park attached to the shopping area.

Now what the latest on this I have heard is ......

1-The powers that be at WD Co and major investors aren't keen on the idea of the theme parks attached to the shopping areas..they have said it down plays exsisting theme parks and would possibly then turn them into a 'six flags' type thing which nobody wants.

2-They are still in the developement stage and have years of research to do. The earliest anything would begin was ballparked at 2012.

Thats the latest rumours I have heard....

 

[MBMacs]

There was a link on the board about a month or so ago from a Disney financial release. The jist was Disney was going to start looking into small destination hotel/resorts. Maybe this is the start of it.

 

[CanadianGuy]

And they state 100 acres but later in the article they say 1000 acres. Our local news says 1000 acres. Obviously 100 acres is not enough for all that stuff so must be a mistake in the article. Hacks me off that journalism students are not taught as well as they used to be. You never woulda seen a mistake like that in an article in days gone by. Don't they have copy editors anymore?

I think the 'park with rides and stages' would be the 100 acres (excluding parking lots, hotels, shopping, etc). The total land purchase is 1000 acres. That's the way I read the article.

It makes that pretty clear:

The park itself would encompass 100 acres, as well as a 100-acre parking lot accommodating 9,000 vehicles.

Knox

 

[mommeoftwin]

sorry for posting this after someone else had. I didn't see it before I made this thread. This is what I saw on our news this morning. I would hope they wouldn't just report something unless it had some merritt to it.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Fishy doesn't describe this half right.. It's full on weird.

2711 Centerville in Delaware brings up this..

Corporate Agents, Inc.
2711 Centerville Road
Suite 420
Wilmington, DE 19808
Ph: (800)499-9519

Website: www.llc.com

I can't imagine Disney would need or be bothered with such an organization.

The address for the fictitious company is a UPS Store in a strip mall. Why does Disney need to do that?

The UPS Store #1502
1926 S Glenstone
Springfield MO 65804
Location Type: Store / Shopping Mall

Further..

Writing..

500 South Buena Vista, Burbank, CA is odd.

Having lived and worked in Burbank, the normal appearance of that street name would be:

500 S. Buena Vista St., Burbank, CA

Ok, that's a small thing.. and probably not indicative of anything.. but then further.. they got that address mostly right but then listed "Corporate Office" for the Team Disney building in Lake Buena Vista?

I'd list the three people's HOME addresses to cloak the corporate identity.

Lastly: Of the three names "Robert Brown" jumped out -- that was Sharon Disney's first husband. He died a year after Walt. Coincidental perhaps.. But.. maybe not.

I think someone is trying to pull something.. and I don't think it's Disney. If it is Disney.. VERY sloppy.

Knox

 

[CanadianGuy]

I've been thinking this thru and it's downright fishy...

Fishy doesn't describe this half right.. It's full on weird.

2711 Centerville in Delaware, the address for Michael Hill brings up this..

Corporate Agents, Inc.
2711 Centerville Road
Suite 420
Wilmington, DE 19808
Ph: (800)499-9519

Website: www.llc.com

I can't imagine Disney would need or be bothered with such an organization.

The address for the fictitious company, ARM Risk is a UPS Store in a strip mall. Why does Disney need to do that?

The UPS Store #1502
1926 S Glenstone
Springfield MO 65804
Location Type: Store / Shopping Mall

Further..

Writing..

500 South Buena Vista, Burbank, CA is odd.

Having lived and worked in Burbank, the normal appearance of that street name would be:

500 S. Buena Vista St., Burbank, CA

Ok, that's a small thing.. and probably not indicative of anything..It IS listed both way for Disney addresses.. but then further.. they got that address right but then listed "Corporate Office" for the Team Disney building in Lake Buena Vista?

I'd list the three people's HOME addresses to cloak the corporate identity.

Lastly: Of the three names "Robert Brown" jumped out -- that was Sharon Disney's first husband. He died a year after Walt. Coincidental perhaps.. But.. maybe not.

I think someone is trying to pull something.. and I don't think it's Disney. If it is Disney.. VERY sloppy.

Knox

 

[EUROPACL]

This is what I saw on our news this morning. I would hope they wouldn't just report something unless it had some merritt to it.

"Yes virginia there is a santa claus"...

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Why would they file for a Ficticious Name? Is that something that's normally done?

Yes, it's normal. There are legal requirements for registering and publishing a business name as a "fictitious name" if you're using anything other than your actual, personal name to do business.

2711 Centerville in Delaware brings up this..

Corporate Agents, Inc.
2711 Centerville Road
Suite 420
Wilmington, DE 19808
Ph: (800)499-9519

2711 Centerville Road seems to be a large office complex with many different occupants. So I wouldn't draw the conclusion that "Michael Hill" is involved with Corporate Agents, Inc. nor with any of the other businesses that have suites at 2711 Centerville Road.

 

[pkgman]

Why would they file for a Ficticious Name? Is that something that's normally done?

(and thanks for the links!)

A Ficticious Name is legal description of business name.

You and I are real people that exist but Dis13 and pkgman are just personas. The regristant of the business exists but companies are personas that the registrants project to the public.

Does that make sense?

EDIT: I'm slow typing. HH beat me posting.

 

[cls4016]

I was just going to post this. I saw it on a local TV news station's web site

http://www.myfoxstl.com/myfox/pages...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1



Just found another one from the NBC affiliate.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=117482&provider=top

 

[CanadianGuy]

One further thought...

This line from the article caught my eye..

But Carter said he was told that 40 percent of the estimated 1,000 acres needed for the proposed park has already been committed for purchase from landowners.

Why on earth would a company as big as Disney tip their hand before the land was 100% secured? They learned that corporate lesson a long time ago and I'd be shocked if they tipped their hand at this point. The cost of the remaining 60% of the land would skyrocket once people thought the purchaser was Disney.

I just can't believe this is Disney. If it is.. they've completely 'lost it' -- presuming they ever had 'it' .

Knox

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Why on earth would a company as big as Disney tip their hand before the land was 100% secured?

I agree.

This seems to be a case in which somebody is trying to make it seem as if Disney is buying land. They're using ridiculously obvious Burbank and Lake Buena Vista addresses and then discussing specific plans with public officials. It seems like someone is trying to plant the idea that Disney is coming to Newton County.

I don't think that Disney is actually buying land. I think somebody is trying to mislead.

 

[Another Voice]

This whole thing is so silly and stupid it isn't really worth commenting on.

At least someone other than The Company is using the name "Disney" to bilk stupid people out of money. That's a change at least.

 

[MJMcBride]

I agree.

This seems to be a case in which somebody is trying to make it seem as if Disney is buying land. They're using ridiculously obvious Burbank and Lake Buena Vista addresses and then discussing specific plans with public officials. It seems like someone is trying to plant the idea that Disney is coming to Newton County.

I don't think that Disney is actually buying land. I think somebody is trying to mislead.

I agree. Although if your assumption is correct, I sense a fraud case.

 

[Butwhyistherumgone?]

I dont understand why the reports keep saying it is in Branson. Branson is NOT is Newton county (I believe it is Taney county). Newton county is west of Branson.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Well, this certrainly is interesting and odd but nonetheless we at least have a legitimate 'Disney to someplace' rumor for the rumors board!

Sure I agree that it if it's Disney it looks extremely shaky relative to covertness but still it seems like the alternative would reek of fraud (although I'm no expert in these legalities).

But still with the current boneheads running Disney I guess it wouldn't really surprise me. If they're just interested in a smaller regional park, as we all believe is the only possibility then it looks like they already have what they need locked up and unlike Walt and based on the recent 4 Seasons deal, I don't think Disney cares about anything outside of their boundaries.

 

[tjkraz]

I still think there are a ton of holes in this report, but does anyone think it's interesting that Disney refused to comment on the story? If there is no Disney connection, wouldn't they want to get their name disassociated quickly?

Perhaps the delay is just a result of the story largely breaking over the weekend.

 

[MermaidMommy]

I've been thinking this thru and it's downright fishy...

It might be fishy, but even wdwinfo.com -- home to the DIS -- sounds intrigued. An excerpt:

"A possible Disney connection was raised when commissioners checked the company owners. On a form called "Registration of Fictitious Name" filed with the Missouri Secretary of State's office in March for ARM Risk, three owners are listed. Corporations routinely file such forms.

The owners are Michael Hill of Wilmington, Del.; Robert Brown, who lists his address as 500 South Buena Vista St., Burbank, Calif.; and Jason Johnson, who lists his address as Corporate Office, Lake Buena Vista, Fla.

On the Internet, commissioners found that the Burbank address is corporate headquarters of the Walt Disney Co. Lake Buena Vista, Fla., is headquarters of Walt Disney World Resort.

Officials at Disney headquarters in Burbank said the company would not comment on the matter."

It's in the "Disney News" section of the wdwinfo home page. Here's the link:
http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/article_001348.htm