Roy Disney Resigns and calls For Eisner's Resignation

[crusader]

AV -

Let's be honest. Would Roy be doing this if he hadn't learned he was slated to be passed over by the nominating committee?

I view this as a powerplay. I see it as serving two purposes - rallying shareholder support while publicly denouncing the CEO.

The problem with this humiliation tactic is that it fails to portray itself favorably on national television. When I saw the interview I thought how very sad it was that this is the level the company had reached within itself.

I also thought how sad it was that Roy and Stanley had to exercise such cautionary repository refrain when they were truly outraged. They didn't appear well. The transcript certainly reads much better than the visual displayed.

My impression was this: had I not been an informed spectator, I wouldn't have been able to decipher the importance and complexity of the issue. It was evident their message was not intended for the average viewer.

This reeks of a repeat perfomance on Roy's part and he has to know that this time he lacks the element of surprise. That will not be easy to overcome.

If it is true that Michael Eisner had been in negotiations for an early retirement, this latest round will not be considered in the best interest of the shareholders. I've said it before, he will want to exit on a much stronger foothold than the company has been demonstrating. This year was a great step in that direction.

There is a certain dignified approach which clearly wasn't elected here. I blame both parties for this. Without it, I don't see how an amicable arrangement will be achieved.

 

[Another Voice]

My personal belief is that Michael Eisner out maneuvered Roy Disney. The events of the past few days were Roy's response to a trap and a demand to "shut up and die quickly". Yes, the entire affair is unseemly, but most of the fault needs to rest with Eisner's bullish and underhanded tactics. He is a man who has always bludgeoned people into silence rather achieve his goals through performance. Like many, he tends to mistake fear for respect and servitude for loyalty.

As for negotiations about his retirement, another fiction that some (people who should have known better) choose to belief. Eisner is a man who brags openly about lying and cheating in business deal. He is a man that justified his unprecedented compensation packages because it was tied to performance - and then scrapped the deal when his performance failed to match his greed. He is a man incapable of actually working with anyone inside or outside of the company - and has alienated The Company's key employees, business partners and customers. Eisner has never created, never produced, never directed anything on his own- his only claim to fame is the power that he wields over a business.

And he is to be trusted to graciously give up his throne?

There is a reason why most depots end up in the grave rather than exile. People whose only interest is power never go quietly. They will use any tactic, any means, any lie, any weapon to retain their status because that's all they have.

All Eisner has is his job; he has no intention, and never had any intention, of leaving.

 

[raidermatt]

It takes two to play nice.

It sounds like Roy was faced with a choice. Either go quietly, or put up a fight. The time for quietly working from within was done, as he was being kicked out. In other words, a third option was removed by Eisner.

Going quietly may have seemed more "dignified" to some, but it would accomplish nothing. Perhaps whatever Roy has planned will not really accomplish anything either, but I can respect him making the effort a lot more than if he just quit.

 

[crusader]

The business tactics and the aggregious comp. are of no surprise to any of us. The disdain for the family is a disgrace particularly toward the one individual who opened the door in the first place.

Sure - one could always argue that a certain Hilton heir has no business in the business and I've seen many other examples of nepotism gone bad.

But to get rid of Roy in this manner is so low it gives a corporate image not unlike the war of the roses.

 

[SoonerKate]

Y'all might find the article "Are Roy and Stanley making a Rainbow Connection?" at Jim Hill Media to be pretty interesting; I know I did. Here's an excerpt:

According to several well-placed sources that I spoke with at the Jim Henson Company yesterday, Disney and Gold have supposedly been meeting quietly with members of the Henson family for months now. It's even been suggested that Roy and Stanley may have played a part in the family's decision to suddenly buy back the Jim Henson Company this past May, rather than allow the Muppets to be sold off to Mickey.

"So what's the point of Walt's nephew and Stanley Gold inserting themselves into the Disney/Henson negotiations?" you ask. Patience, Grasshopper. All will be explained shortly.

Very, very interesting read...

 

[raidermatt]

Yup, here's the link:Jim Hill

Wow. If this is true, I guess we can lay to rest any doubts there were about Mike's personality/style being a major issue during contract negotiations with potential partners.

I'm still no more than mildly optimistic about ultimate success, but if the plan does involve support from the previously Eisner-guided board, and the Pixar/Henson rumors are true, the chances are a lot greater.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
It takes two to play nice.

It sounds like Roy was faced with a choice. Either go quietly, or put up a fight. The time for quietly working from within was done, as he was being kicked out.

But, and I may have missed a step here, didn't Roy help pass the change in the by-laws that mandated that no board member be over 72 years old? Even if he didn't support that bit of change, wouldn't he have known back when that passed that he wouldn't be re-nominated?

I get the whole thing about why he chose to resign instead of simply not being re-nominated, but I don't get why everyone keeps saying he was "kicked out." He was THERE when that by-law change mandating an age limit was passed.

 

[raidermatt]

I believe the age limit was passed under the guise of being part of the corporate governence reform. Opposing it would have been portrayed as being against the reform. Further, he wouldn't have been able to stop it, as I'm sure it had enough support elsewhere on the board. He would have just gotten caught up in a seemingly meaningless battle that was unwinnable. It would have hurt his credibility.

It has much more impact if he makes his stand when he is actually being "asked to leave" as opposed to when the rule was being discussed.

Further, its my understanding that the rule is not supposed to apply to the management of the company, of which Roy is technically a part.

Then again, its very possible that Roy knew the rule would eventually lead to Eisner trying to get him out. Since working to get Eisner out was going to require him to be off of the board, it helps his case if he can frame it as being kicked out instead of just leaving on his own. If we believe that possibility, Roy may have supported the rule in an effort to get kicked out.

EVEN Further, if we are to believe the scenario Jim Hill is putting forth, perhaps the board voted Disney out as part of a plan they are actually involved in, allowing Roy to portray himself as being kicked out.

That might be a reach, but at this point, who knows?

 

[Another Voice]

"He was THERE when that by-law change mandating an age limit was passed."

The explanation, as I have heard it, goes like this.

The age limit has been there for a while, but it's never been enforced.

The age limit for the Board excludes those members who are officers of The Company. As Chairman of Feature Animation, Roy Disney is therefore exempt from the age limit provision.

Over the weekend Roy Disney learned that a committee of the Board of Directors, at the "urging" of Michael Eisner, had excluded Roy Disney from the list of nominees to be put before the stockholders for the next board election. They cited the rule as a justification, although the application of the rule is questionable. This was the same move that Eisner used last year to eliminate another outspoken board member; she was excluded from the next election and therefore removed from the Board.

The result is that Roy Disney felt he was being ousted from the board through political maneuvering (i.e. through Eisner's control over the nominating process of who gets to sit on the board) rather than as a rule of corporate governance (a rule about the age limits for board members).

To many people, it appears that the much-trumpeted "corporate governance reforms" are simply being used to further corrupt the board. This includes such things as awarding bonuses to Board members, granting stock and "consulting" contracts to George Micthell (the alleged "outside" leader of the reforms), prohibitions about communicating with shareholders (rather strange a Board member not allowed to talk with the people they are supposed to represent) and other tactics all aimed at rewarding friends of Eisner and killing off people who disagree with him.

It appears Roy and Stanley finally had enough.

 

[Testtrack321]

AV- is there ANY hope that pre-Wells death Disney will return? Or will Esiner sell it off? Is there any chance? Any hope?

 

[Mr D]

Its been proven that eventually regimes fall, some like Castro remain but eventually events take on a definate purpose of realigning. Saddam relied heavily on intimidation to keep himself in power, but eventually events required actions from another country (USA) to intervene and usurp this dictator.

Trying to topple from within has failed so an outside source or rather a group of nations banded together and invaded Iraq thus removing Saddam, is Michael Eisner in any way to be compared to Saddam you ask? not in any realist approach but in the effort of removing an entrenched leader it often curtails attacking swiftly and at the heart.

To remove ME would involve discrediting him in such a manner as revealing he is a pedophile, a drug user, or has violated SEC rules and the such, look at Martha Stewart.
Or look at Clinton, he was publicly disgraced because of his pandering sexcapades while in office. Ironically Bill Clinton and ME are very much in certain ways, has ME taken cash bribes for the latest drive-through Disney park in Honk Kong? Of course he has!

There are huge warehouses of plush in Orlando that recieve these items from China, they probably cost a whole penny to make but sell here in the US for thousands the times markup, why not? its all profit of course in deals with the Chinese government.

The Jim Henson tragedy is going to really bite him in the rear, I keep thinking about the snide backslap comment ME said about Hensen one day, its gonna come back from the grave ME you just can wait and see.

 

[Mr D]

BTW for anybody who may be reading my way too infrequent and often scathing to the point blunt views,

Its my birthday today, and tomorrow its Walts!

 

[caseymaureen]

Happy Birthday Mr.D!

 

[ohanafamily]

Happy B-Day Mr. D.

 

[raidermatt]

Kevin Yee's take on the current situation:

Kevin Yee's Column

 

[eclipseSD]

 

[BRERALEX]

at 8 am that just made my day

 

[erikthewise]

The Jim Hill site has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

I had the opportunity to meet Jim Hill last weekend at WDW and had a very brief discussion with him about these matters. No I don't have really juicy tidbits to share. Nor do I care to repeat even the few things Mr. Hill said to me; he can speak for himself perfectly well on his website. However....

I am convinced that Mr. Hill has the best interests of the Disney Corporation at heart, and that is why he is running his site.

He feels he has an inside source of information on the developing story of Roy E. Disney and Michael Eisner, and expects to be posting some very interesting articles on this in the near future. I believe him.

Even if you don't ordinarily visit his site, I strongly recommend you keep your eye on it over the next couple weeks. There are already several articles posted on this topic (go back to Dec 1 in the "Archives"); unless I miss my guess, there will be more, and better.

And if you like what you read, consider supporting his site. It appears to be a labor of love.

 

[HB2K]

Originally posted by erikthewise
The Jim Hill site has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

I had the opportunity to meet Jim Hill last weekend at WDW and had a very brief discussion with him about these matters. No I don't have really juicy tidbits to share. Nor do I care to repeat even the few things Mr. Hill said to me; he can speak for himself perfectly well on his website. However....

I am convinced that Mr. Hill has the best interests of the Disney Corporation at heart, and that is why he is running his site.

He feels he has an inside source of information on the developing story of Roy E. Disney and Michael Eisner, and expects to be posting some very interesting articles on this in the near future. I believe him.

Even if you don't ordinarily visit his site, I strongly recommend you keep your eye on it over the next couple weeks. There are already several articles posted on this topic (go back to Dec 1 in the "Archives"); unless I miss my guess, there will be more, and better.

And if you like what you read, consider supporting his site. It appears to be a labor of love.

Signed,

Michelle the Fab Dis Babe!


Joking.....

All joking aside I love Jim's site as well...just wish he wrote more...

 

[erikthewise]

Originally posted by HB2K
Signed,

Michelle the Fab Dis Babe!


Joking.....

All joking aside I love Jim's site as well...just wish he wrote more...

No problem... If you post here you have to expect jokes!

BTW please note I do not claim that rescuing the Disney Corporation from evil is the ONLY reason Jim does the site; I'm sure he's a more "complex" individual than that.