Roy Disney Sues Disney Company

[Chuck S]

Unless the company is doing well with "Wall Street" (which you don't care about), it can't do well creatively. The funds simply won't be there, and they'll remain ripe for the picking. Let them get the financial house in order so they have a little breathing room and working capital, then look for them to work on the creative end. It takes money to make money.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Good timing.

 

[YoHo]

Unless the company is doing well with "Wall Street" (which you don't care about), it can't do well creatively. The funds simply won't be there, and they'll remain ripe for the picking. Let them get the financial house in order so they have a little breathing room and working capital, then look for them to work on the creative end. It takes money to make money.

This is a lame duck excuse and I'm sick and tired of hearing it. Wall Street doesn't give a [expletive deleted] and they don't generate revenue. All Wall Street cares about is the bottom line and even then, if Eisenr hadn't promised 20% growth every year, they wouldn't even care if profits and growth were less. Wall Street leaves companies alone unless they screw up. I swear to you that every company that is worried more about the street then they are about their core competency is a mismanged screwed up company. Disney is a prime example.


As evidence, my current company is publically traded. The only time Wall Street is mentioned in terms of how and why this business is run is during quarterly reports. and that's nothing more then informative. nobody feels threatened about their jobs because the street won't like it. We feel driven to succeed. Apparently, you are all corporate drones or believe all corporate america is drone like. How sad.

 

[crusader]

Look, I don't care about Disney the Company that trades stock on Wall Street. I care about Disney the creative and inventive force that created these beloved movies and beloved themeparks.

Well, it would be great if the majority of the stockholders of the company cared about both but I'm afraid the pension funds managers and probably a few key independents really don't care what is being sold and how it is produced so long as it guarantees a rate of return on their investment.

The corporate management bears the continual burden of having to meet the "owners" expectations on the street in a highly competitive market - to protect the stock.

And before you hand me that line that creative and inventive automatically leads to money - stop and think very carefully. There are an equal amount of brilliant individuals in the marketing and finance fields for a reason. It takes an entire team within a corporate empire to succeed, not just one division. Too many employees fail to see that.

 

[crusader]

Re: this lawsuit -

My initial thought was: they want back in.

 

[SnackyStacky]

And I get that. But in the world of "what's best for Disney", where does this fit?

Granted, not everyone was thrilled that Iger was the choice, but reviews on him thus far have been cautiously optimistic. He's got Steve Jobs saying nice things about him, and giving everyone hope that there may actually be some re-negotiations about Pixar's future with Disney. He's made some quick and apparently positive changes at the corporate level. He was hardly ever seen with Eisner during the 50th, but was prominently seen on the streets of both DL and WDW during the event. He's not been cocky or condescending or any of the other things that people so hated about Eisner.

So in the absence of anything blatantly negative, I guess I'm wondering why this new suit from Disney and Gold is seen as a good thing for the company. Because that's what Save Disney is all about -- what is best for the company.

Because while we can remain cautiously optimistic, would you REALLY want it to get to the point that something tragic happens to the company because Eisner has himself so inextricably linked to the future of the company? He has the board in his pocket!!! I don't think he's going to be gone when he leaves.

AND, I think it's going to take a while for any decisions to show up on the bottom lines. THings they're doing now may boost the bottom line now - but this administration has a serious problem with the long-term effects of their decision. The stock is on a rise, but it's done that before.

Yes, if the board violated some rule or policy, call them on it. But Roy and Stan are going to need more than just what they believe happened or what they think everyone's motives were. And I honestly don't think they're looking at what this could do to the Company -- both image-wise and financially. Think of the time, resources and money a court case will take away from the company and the stockholders (and the CMs and the guests). And no, I don't think that boards should be allowed to misbehave simply because it costs too much to pursue a case. But you can't also have so much tunnel vision the other way that you can't look at things in context. It's as though Roy and Stan wouldn't really care if the Company tanked, as long as they got back at Eisner and Mitchell.

Not even a month after shareholders were promised an extensive search for an external candidate, Iger was announced as the next CEO.

I believe that Iger's moves in the network television deals (Fox Family, ABC) were motivated by his desire to move up in the company - since he repeatedly was bumped off the number one spot in any given deal for one reason or another - do we REALLY want someone like that in charge of Disney? Someone who will play with numbers to make them say what somebody wants them to say?

I really believe that in the long term, this IS in fact good for the company. If for no other BECAUSE someone called the board on their moves. Somebody said - wait a second - you can't do that.

 

[WDSearcher]

This is a lame duck excuse and I'm sick and tired of hearing it. .... Apparently, you are all corporate drones or believe all corporate america is drone like. How sad.

And I'm sick and tired of hearing how you have only the higher ideals in mind and anyone who doesn't think that way is a corporate drone who doesn't care about Walt and his great dream. We don't live in a vacuum, YoHo, and you know it. If Disney, tomorrow, dropped every single person and project from its rolls that you thought was doing harm and brought back everything that you thought was creative and good, you'd be thrilled. But all that creativity costs money, and if Disney started dropping companies and affiliates and down-sizing and laying people off to get back to the company as it was when Walt was alive, I'm thinking that the stock would drop a bit, and all of that money-hungry, non-revenue producing creativity would sink the company in a year. And then there will be nothing left of Walt's dream except for a few theme parks in Tokyo.

Unfortunately, the company has to appease the shareholders in addition to those of you who don't give a [expletive] about Wall Street. But you know ... killing off the creative in favor of the dollar isn't necessary any more than tossing Wall Street out the window in favor of creativity. What has to happen is a balance between the two. That's what Disney has to find again.

If you believe that Wall Street and creativity are mutually exclusive, then leave now, because you will never be happy and you will always have unrealistic expectations. If you truly want the company to flourish today, you have to move a few decades into the present and realize that Wall Street is something you have to give a [expletive] about, whether you want to or not. It was Walt who took Disney public in the first place in 1940 because he knew it was the only way he'd be able to raise enough money to do the stuff he wanted to do. Not everything Walt touched turned to gold either, but he had Wall Street there to back him up and keep him going.
So stop grousing about how everyone is in it for the money. Walt was in it for the money too.

 

[WDSearcher]

Because while we can remain cautiously optimistic, would you REALLY want it to get to the point that something tragic happens to the company because Eisner has himself so inextricably linked to the future of the company?

Oh, please. What horrible tragic thing is going to happen? And if Eisner has himself so inextricably linked to the future of the company, why was he a token celeb at the biggest bash Disney has had in years? Where was he and all his evil, tragic power? What did you hear Eisner say during those speeches or interviews that led you to believe that horrible tragic things are right around the corner?

He has the board in his pocket!!! I don't think he's going to be gone when he leaves.

Based on ... what evidence? Not just a "feeling" or a general dislike of the man or how well you "know" the company or his evil countenance. Give me a statement he's made that has you fearful of his future presence. (And, as you might guess, the fact that Iger is in charge doesn't prove it to me, since I'm one of those wacky people who believe that Iger makes his own decisions and isn't under the influence of a hypnotic memory chip installed by the evil Eisner to continue his bidding after he's gone.)

AND, I think it's going to take a while for any decisions to show up on the bottom lines. THings they're doing now may boost the bottom line now - but this administration has a serious problem with the long-term effects of their decision. The stock is on a rise, but it's done that before.

Yeah ... stocks are funny like that. They rise, they fall. The thing here is that a stock rise always seems to be attributed to a quirk or dumb luck or stupid consumers following blindly, while a stock fall seems to always be attributed to something evil that Disney's Eisner-infested management has done. Is it possible that one of those stock rises was caused by capable management and every so often a stock fall is a reflection of the economy or the market? Probably not, because then the "evil Eisner" theory doesn't work.

I believe that Iger's moves in the network television deals (Fox Family, ABC) were motivated by his desire to move up in the company - since he repeatedly was bumped off the number one spot in any given deal for one reason or another - do we REALLY want someone like that in charge of Disney? Someone who will play with numbers to make them say what somebody wants them to say?

If that was really his true motive, then no, we probably don't. But what you believe Iger's motives are and what Iger's motives actually are, are probably two very different things. I've got no info about you and your financial and corporate knowledge, and maybe your gut feeling is something we should all be acting on. But again ... in absence of anything blatantly negative -- and with no evidence that evil Zorgs are hiding in the wings just ready to pounce on the unsuspecting lovers of all things Disney -- I just don't see why we have to start off mistrusting someone simply because the board picked him. Is it that hard to believe that maybe Iger was the right guy? Or is it simply that Roy and Stan hate him, so therefore he must be bad. How is that a better way to look at things? It doesn't seem like Roy and Stan have Disney's best interests in mind either. They just want to take down Eisner and claim a victory. They could care less what happens after that. So ... why should I take their word for anything?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Oh, please. What horrible tragic thing is going to happen? And if Eisner has himself so inextricably linked to the future of the company, why was he a token celeb at the biggest bash Disney has had in years? Where was he and all his evil, tragic power? What did you hear Eisner say during those speeches or interviews that led you to believe that horrible tragic things are right around the corner?

Have ya SEEN what happened with Enron?

Do I think it's happening? Not necessarily. Do I put it beyond Eisner? Nope.

Based on ... what evidence? Not just a "feeling" or a general dislike of the man or how well you "know" the company or his evil countenance. Give me a statement he's made that has you fearful of his future presence. (And, as you might guess, the fact that Iger is in charge doesn't prove it to me, since I'm one of those wacky people who believe that Iger makes his own decisions and isn't under the influence of a hypnotic memory chip installed by the evil Eisner to continue his bidding after he's gone.)

"I don't want to be irrelevant. I'm not going to ask the board to named chairman. I'm not going to beg for it. But the board might come to me. Then I'd have to consider it. Will I continue to play a creative role? That's up to Disney." - Michael Eisner, quote pulled from Disney War

Like I said - he's got the board stacked and I think that comment is not-quite-so cryptic.

And I never said Iger was hypnotized or memory chipped or any such nonsense. What I said was he did have a yes-man attitude, but that attitude had NOTHING to do with Eisner, but rather his own personal gain.

Yeah ... stocks are funny like that. They rise, they fall. The thing here is that a stock rise always seems to be attributed to a quirk or dumb luck or stupid consumers following blindly, while a stock fall seems to always be attributed to something evil that Disney's Eisner-infested management has done. Is it possible that one of those stock rises was caused by capable management and every so often a stock fall is a reflection of the economy or the market? Probably not, because then the "evil Eisner" theory doesn't work.

I never said that. What I said was the stock was currently rising, but it's trend has been downward. Yes it had risen, but over the past few years, it has steadily fallen barring when big news happens and the a-typical peaks and huge drops happen.

If that was really his true motive, then no, we probably don't. But what you believe Iger's motives are and what Iger's motives actually are, are probably two very different things. I've got no info about you and your financial and corporate knowledge, and maybe your gut feeling is something we should all be acting on.

Never said ANYBODY should be acting on my gut. The only reason I feel the way I do is because of the precedent that Disney's very own board has set.

But again ... in absence of anything blatantly negative -- and with no evidence that evil Zorgs are hiding in the wings just ready to pounce on the unsuspecting lovers of all things Disney -- I just don't see why we have to start off mistrusting someone simply because the board picked him.

The last sentence of my last post summed up my feelings about this: it's the BOARD, and Eisner, that need to be called out. Honestly? I don't trust Iger as far as I can throw him - but he has NOTHING to do with why I support Roy and Stan's move.

Is it that hard to believe that maybe Iger was the right guy? Or is it simply that Roy and Stan hate him, so therefore he must be bad.

My opinions of Iger have nothing to do with what Roy and Stan think of him. I couldn't care less. I applaud Iger's getting rid of strategic planning. I think it's a step in the right direction. But like I said - Disney's board has set a precedent that makes me very wary. I'm sure YOU don't have blind faith in Iger - and your insinuation to me feels like you think I believe Iger to be the devil himself, come to wreak havoc on Disney. That's simply not the case. I don't trust him at all. But I'm willing to wait it out for him to prove himself.

How is that a better way to look at things? It doesn't seem like Roy and Stan have Disney's best interests in mind either. They just want to take down Eisner and claim a victory. They could care less what happens after that. So ... why should I take their word for anything?

Like I said earlier - you can't have a corporate board that just says "search is over! We're good with this guy!" when they promised a THROUGH search. That's not what we got.

 

[YoHo]

WDSearcher, Your lecture on the control the stockholders have over a corporation was nice, too bad it's completely irrelevent to the situation.


From the time Roy brought Eisner in until the time he was forced to sell much of his Disney stock on a margin call, there was exactly 1 shareholder then anyone from the board down gave a good gosh darn about and that was Sid Bass. Nobody cared about the pension funds. nobody cared about joe schmo.

Bass and Roy, those were the stockholders that matter. And now, Eisner is a pretty big stockholder himself. You think he's going to liquidate that when he retires? He'll still have ungodly amounts of influence.

As a matter of fact the only time anyone gave a darn about the big pension fund holders and other industrial stockholders (from the point of view of running the company) was in 2004 when those stockholders managed to cast that monumental vote. Prior to that the Disney Company could not have cared less.



So let's recap.

1: I don't want a company that is dictated to by Wallstreet.

2: in my personal experience, it's entirely possible to work at such a company in the year 2005.

3: The Disney Company never cared about institutional investors prior to the 2004 stockholders meeting. Eisner cared about his patrons Sid Bass and Roy (until Roy and Stan became a problem) and that was it.

4: Now the major stockholders are Roy and Eisner with Sid still holding significant shares although he no longer has the power he once did.



So, care to rethink your Wall street argument given there is no recent historical evidence to back it up?

 

[DVCconvert]

Like I said earlier - you can't have a corporate board that just says "search is over! We're good with this guy!" when they promised a THROUGH search. That's not what we got.

This is perhaps the single biggest chunk of this whole issue.

For someone as politically experienced as Mitchell, it seems hard to believe he would not have been way OVERLY sensitized to even the slightest hint of, or appearance of, impropriety with each step of the selection process.
Yet, many are concerned that the COB's & BODs actions, by virture of a lack of multiple external candidates/Eisners insistence to be present for all meetings/Mitchell's rapid elevation to COB, (along with his former employement by Eisner) - all combine to cause reasonable people, reasonable doubts as to the integrity of the process.

 

[DVCconvert]

A bit more on the Bass Family -

The drop in the stock market in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States resulted in a major sale of stock by some of the members of the Bass family to meet liquidity needs and margin calls.

The stock they sold was Disney whose profits depend on television advertising revenue and travel to theme parks and attractions. The Bass family had a long history of Disney stock ownership dating back to 1984 when they helped the company fend off corporate raiders.

Sid Bass had a close relationship with Eisner. Bass supported Eisner even when other investors were concerned about the company's strategy and performance. The Bass family sale involved 135 million shares of stock.

 

[WDSearcher]

Have ya SEEN what happened with Enron? Do I think it's happening? Not necessarily. Do I put it beyond Eisner? Nope.

And I think you're being silly and giving Eisner way too much credit. If he was going to do something like that, he had a lot of chances before now. Why wait and do that as your swan song? What has he done that would lead you to believe that taking down the entire company is his goal? What has he done that would lead you to compare what he is doing at Disney with the hands down destruction at Enron. Maybe I'm just stupid and can't see the connection, but I don't. I see the personal vendetta that Roy and Stan are fighting as being far more destructive. Let them ruin the man if they want to, but don't use the company as a weapon.

"I don't want to be irrelevant. I'm not going to ask the board to named chairman. I'm not going to beg for it. But the board might come to me. Then I'd have to consider it. Will I continue to play a creative role? That's up to Disney." - Michael Eisner, quote pulled from Disney War

I've seen nothing from Disney as yet that indicates that they're just chomping at the bit, waiting for him to retire so that he can be reinstalled on the board. If anything, it's the opposite. The board "might" come to him. He'd need to "consider" it. Sounds like normal old about-to-retire rhetoric to me. Keeping doors open just in case, while making no promises for the future. Do I think that he'll continue to have a hand in the future of Disney? Sure. Do I think he will be controlling every move Disney makes from the back of a board room with the board on puppet strings? No. Why? Because Iger has an ego too.

The only reason I feel the way I do is because of the precedent that Disney's very own board has set.

I get that. I really do. But there's an alarmist way that the anti-Eisner folks talk that makes it seem like they expect this one guy to single-handedly take down the world. Like he's larger than life and more powerful than God. And maybe that's just because people have so much emotion wrapped around Disney and the iconic Walt. Eisner is an egotistical, smart, powerful executive who isn't well-liked by a lot of people. That's it. That's all he is. Too many people are assigning him too much power and influence. It's like a bully on a playground -- the kids all look at each other, point to him and whisper, "Stay away from him ... he's a bully." And so the kid has power without ever doing anything other than look mean. So many of the posts assume that everything ME does is evil -- it's like he could find a cure for cancer and someone would find something bad in it, just because he's Eisner.

I'm sure YOU don't have blind faith in Iger - and your insinuation to me feels like you think I believe Iger to be the devil himself, come to wreak havoc on Disney. That's simply not the case. I don't trust him at all. But I'm willing to wait it out for him to prove himself.

No, I don't have blind faith, and forgive me if I misread your intent in your earlier post. It didn't seem as though you were showing much of an open mind where Iger was concerned. The difference between us on this, I think, is that I'm letting him start at zero. He's on even ground with me as a CEO. Your post makes it seem as though he automatically starts several notches in the hole simply because he backed the aquisition of ABC Family. Because yeah -- stupid idea in hindsight. But having not been in the room during the pitch, I can't say whether it was clear at the time. Disney wasn't the only studio to turn down Lord of the Rings, yet how many times have people said how stupid ME was for not knowing it was going to be a blockbuster. Armchair quarterbacking is easy. Running a multi-media conglomerate is not.

Like I said earlier - you can't have a corporate board that just says "search is over! We're good with this guy!" when they promised a THROUGH search. That's not what we got.

I'm sure what you meant here was a THOROUGH search, not a THROUGH search. Because, technically, what you seem to have gotten was a "through" search. As in, "we went through the names and chose this one." Thorough is what I think you meant.

 

[airlarry!]

1."Walt was in it for the money too."

On what do you base this statement?

2. The suit.

I've heard people on this and other boards say that all of the is and ts would be taken care of and the suit seems frivolous.

Isn't there a reverse to that coin?

Much of the savedisney argument was that Ei$ner had the board in his pocket and wanted to install Mini-ME as his personal flunky. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, you must admit that Gold & Disney screeeeeeeeaaaaamed about this happening.

Guess what? After a long and thorough search (tongue-in-cheek), the very guy Gold & Disney predicted was the choice all along got the job. Does that mean there was a conspiracy? Not if you doubt the Meg Ebay story. Not if you believe the board had every intention of picking the very best candidate. Not if you think the board has established its unbridled independence from Michael Orcner.

Course if you believe all of that...

Bottom line is...Gold & Disney don't claim to be prognosticators or prescient fortune tellers. Yet what they predicted came true. Despite the fact that many, many, many commenters predicted that this board would not pick Igor just based on the fact that he was the pre-savedisney favored son.

But this board picked him anyway. I know, I know, because Bob Iger was the absolute best choice for the job, right?

Are we really that sure that they took every precaution? Is there no one who believes that this board has just enough arrogance to do what it wants, when it wants, and the details be damned.

 

[WDSearcher]

So, care to rethink your Wall street argument given there is no recent historical evidence to back it up?

Nope. I will agree with you that no one cared about Wall Street before 2004. But no one had to. Roy and Stan's campaign was what taught Disney that Wall Street was something to care about. And Roy and Stan would still be using Wall Street if they'd have had the forethought to think about what to do AFTER the board meeting. But they had no plan, and so the investors, with no other direction, did what they always do -- looked at the bottom line. Disney, having been taught the importance of getting the Street on your side by Roy and Stan, provided nice earnings and kept the big investors generally happy. Both Disney and the Roy/Stan camp have passed the point of no return where that's concerned. Both parties, having wooed Wall Street and elevated Wall Street's position and used Wall Street to their advantage, cannot now go back to finding them unimportant. Neither party can say, "Thanks for the help ... see ya" and run their businesses as if stock prices and investor opinion doesn't matter. They forced the relationship and now have to find a way to balance it. Whoever does that best will win.

 

[crusader]

1: I don't want a company that is dictated to by Wallstreet.

Then don't put you hand out on the Street.

2: in my personal experience, it's entirely possible to work at such a company in the year 2005.

Depends, for all you may or may know. Take a look at how much the top tier of your company is draining and who holds what. Just because you can't see someone playing outside, doesn't mean they're not on the street.

3: The Disney Company never cared about institutional investors prior to the 2004 stockholders meeting. Eisner cared about his patrons Sid Bass and Roy (until Roy and Stan became a problem) and that was it.

Too far left. They cared but they all played games, bent the rules and got nailed for it. You can't use the Roy/Stan campaign of 2004 to relay anything beyond a point in time unprecedented noconfidence vote driven mainly because Roy is a Disney. It's meaningless, given the votes for 2005.

4: Now the major stockholders are Roy and Eisner with Sid still holding significant shares although he no longer has the power he once did.

What's your point? That these guys are all who mattered to themselves? Now that's a surprise.

 

[YoHo]

Searcher, my point is that the argument predates 2004 so I find it heard to believe that it's true.


Crusader, some of your post is not in any form of english I recognize, but to sum up, my point is that Prior to the no vote (Roy and Stan didn't Campaign for a no vote in 2005, so how does that meeting's results matter in any way?) and Sid Bass's Margin Call, Disney was run such to keep only Sid Bass and Roy happy. As Eisner amassed power, he edged the annoying (to him) Roy out and kept Sid happy. Sid was his patron and gave him the power over the board which put him in the all powerful position he's in. Therefore, the argument that Disney has to bow to the will of the street is pure bull since they never did in the past.


Searcher makes a good point that now, in 2005 they have to tread a bit more lightly, but again, those no votes, those pension fund balks happened, becaus e of the presentation Roy and Stan made. This is documented. So, logically, Roy and Stan may have some amount of backing. More then just sour grapes.

They actually got the investors to buy in to their take on Disney's failures. That says that "The Street" is more then willing to back the Disney us "idealists" long for.

In otherwords, they want a Disney that lives up to the hype rather then coasting on it.

 

[WDSearcher]

1."Walt was in it for the money too." On what do you base this statement?

"All I know about money is that I have to have it to do things. I have little respect for money as such; I regard it merely as a medium for financing new ideas." Walt Disney

"Biggest problem? Well, I'd say it's been my biggest problem all my life. MONEY. It takes a lot of money to make these dreams come true." Walt Disney

"I wanted to build things, to get something going. What money meant to me what that I was able to get money to do that for me." Walt Disney

I never said he was greedy or loved money or thought he needed to be rich, but he was in it for the money. He knew it was the only way to get to do the next thing. The thought that he was this guy who never cared how much something cost as long as it was magical is inaccurate. He understood money and he understood that he needed money to make money. That's why he had investors. That's why he sold stock.

Are we really that sure that they took every precaution? Is there no one who believes that this board has just enough arrogance to do what it wants, when it wants, and the details be damned.

Of course the board has enough arrogance to do what it wants. Wouldn't you, if no one was posing a threat? Do YOU honestly believe that Roy and Stan were naive enough to say to each other, "You know ... we don't have to put an opposing slate of directors up there. I trust the current board; I'm sure they'll do the right thing."

Everyone keeps talking about how Stan and Roy know all this stuff will happen and have been proven right over and over and over again. And yet, they put blind trust in a batch of people they couldn't stand and in whom they had "no confidence." What did they think the outcome was going to be? Did they honestly think that "their guy" (whoever that might have been) was going to get hired by osmosis? Did they offer one bit of concrete evidence to anyone that Iger was not a good choice, other than that he was Eisner's pick? If Eisner had made a play like that in a business deal, people would be calling for him to be tarred and feathered. But in this case, it's just another instance of poor, trusting Roy and Stan being blind-sided by the mean ol' board. I don't buy it.

 

[airlarry!]

Actually, don't your quotes prove the opposite of what you say?

And why can't it be that Roy & Stan did not put up the slate..because they knew it was pointless. And they trusted the board to be arrogant enough to conduct the search incorrectly.

Let's assume they knew they couldn't win the alternate slate vote.

If their threats caused the board to hire a 'better' candidate than Iger, they win. If the board ignores the threats and conducts a sham search, then they have given themselves a better chance to win in court then they did with a loser alternate slate vote.

I'm not saying this as fact. I'm speculating. But would it come as that much of a surprise that Roy & Stan wanted two bites at the apple?

 

[SnackyStacky]

"All I know about money is that I have to have it to do things. I have little respect for money as such; I regard it merely as a medium for financing new ideas." Walt Disney

"Biggest problem? Well, I'd say it's been my biggest problem all my life. MONEY. It takes a lot of money to make these dreams come true." Walt Disney

"I wanted to build things, to get something going. What money meant to me what that I was able to get money to do that for me." Walt Disney

I never said he was greedy or loved money or thought he needed to be rich, but he was in it for the money. He knew it was the only way to get to do the next thing. The thought that he was this guy who never cared how much something cost as long as it was magical is inaccurate. He understood money and he understood that he needed money to make money. That's why he had investors. That's why he sold stock.

Of course the board has enough arrogance to do what it wants. Wouldn't you, if no one was posing a threat? Do YOU honestly believe that Roy and Stan were naive enough to say to each other, "You know ... we don't have to put an opposing slate of directors up there. I trust the current board; I'm sure they'll do the right thing."

Everyone keeps talking about how Stan and Roy know all this stuff will happen and have been proven right over and over and over again. And yet, they put blind trust in a batch of people they couldn't stand and in whom they had "no confidence." What did they think the outcome was going to be? Did they honestly think that "their guy" (whoever that might have been) was going to get hired by osmosis? Did they offer one bit of concrete evidence to anyone that Iger was not a good choice, other than that he was Eisner's pick? If Eisner had made a play like that in a business deal, people would be calling for him to be tarred and feathered. But in this case, it's just another instance of poor, trusting Roy and Stan being blind-sided by the mean ol' board. I don't buy it.

I agree with Larry. I think the only thing the quotes you've provided prove is that Walt thought money got in the way. In fact, another of his quotes is something to the fact that he never went into Disneyland with the idea of making money!

Walt NEVER sold stock. ROY did, and it ticked Walt off that he kept hearing "We have investors to answer to." Walt REALLY wanted nothing to do with the money side of it. Which is why he and Roy were CONSTANTLY at odds.

How could Roy and Stan offer those bits of advice to Eisner?! By the time Eisner even ACKNOWLEDGED he had to get some succession plan underway, Roy and Stan had left and started Save Disney. The reason they left is because Eisner was, quite literally, spying on them. Roy and Stan HAD voiced their concerns about Eisner TO Eisner.

When Eisner had been brought on in '84, it was because of Roy and Stan. And he told them that if they ever lost faith in him, to tell him, and he'd step down. Well, Roy and Stanley told Eisner they'd lost faith in him, and reiterated what Eisner had said in '84. Eisner's response? "I never said that." And that's when he started spying on Roy. And that's what started to irritate Roy, and EVENTUALLY caused him to resign.

So - no. Roy and Stan never put blind faith in the board.

Did they offer concrete proof that Iger was wrong for the job? They certainly are now by demanding the figures of the ABC and Fox Family deals - deals that IGER was responsible for - be disclosed. When those figures are released, and it's revealed that things were miscalculated to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars, then absolutely there will be concrete proof.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't see this as Roy and Stan being blind-sided. I think Roy and Stanley KNOW exactly what's happening, and what HAS happened to the company.