Roy, Stan & Save Disney FAIL

[crusader]

Don't overlook more transparency in reporting board member's financial relationships, a public announcemment by Ei$ner of a time of his departure (as opposed to CEO for life), a vast increase in shareholder scrutiny of the company and it's management, the appointment of more legitimate independent directors.

You're right. But all of these things are very temporary measures to get past Roy's choir. In fact the "vast increase in shareholder scrutiny" had already past a year ago. I'm afraid the rest of it is pretty much over as well. Once the publicity died down, nobody on the street gave a damn what the company did so long as its' performance continued to meet their needs. Just look at the numbers following Eisner's announcement. Nothing.

And if the company continues to do well now that ABC is rallying back; themepark attendance on the rise; et al. Eisner may actually wind up with a second accreditation regarding the resurrection of Disney - even if it fell during his watch in the 90's. (He'll need animation)

That's a fatal shot to the save disney platform.

My analogy was intended to illustrate Ei$ner comparative overwhelming entrenched powerbase, and to show the incredible force necessary to budge him/it

I know but Walt and his brother used to be the overwhelming entrenched powerbase of the company which their heirs inherited and gave away. Roy wasn't the ant initially.

 

[freediverdude]

Well my two cents- I am renewing my WDW premium annual pass for this year, while I see what happens with the CEO search, but possibly for the last time. If Eisner ends up staying on the board with Iger the new CEO, it's basically going to be the same management, with different titles. They've done some building and greenlighting new attractions the past couple years, because they've suspected they were losing favor, but now that the economy is turning better, and if Iger gets the CEO position, all that will fade quickly into the status quo of the 90s. If this happens this year, I won't be able to support that MBA mentality anymore, and it will be my last year at the theme parks. I know most people won't do the same, but I bet a lot of Disney fans will take note if Eisner and Iger stay on board.

 

[wendy1974]

Didn't read all posts but I can say that I withheld my vote from Eisner- wanted to make a statement

 

[disrailfan]

I can't see how anyone can say this was a complete failure. Without this Vote last year Eisner might have gotten another contract? They did at least split his job and make plans for a successor.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Ummmm...Eisner has always said he planned on retiring when his contract was up.

 

[lodgelady]

Good topic Pirate, but I have to see the glass as half full......

In my view Save Disney is watchdog group. Why wouldn't Disney Lovers all be glad they are there to at least stand up to the MBA's!! The pressure Roy and Stan brought to bear did matter for the common Disney fan.....

Because of the efforts of Save Disney both Disney parks are getting long-delayed attention. The high cost of a WDW vacation for the average family was addressed.....I think there has been less impact than we may have wanted , but the Disney Corporation is obviously run more like a dictatorship than a democracy. Change happens slowly. I personally feel that the management got that there is a limit to consumer and shareholder patience with the "keepers of the flame". That is great. It is not failure.

I hope Save Disney remains in the picture for a long time, watching out for the Disney Legacy for all of us.

 

[manning]

If the lawsuit is won in Delaware over the orvitz firing then you may see some changes. This may make it easier to hold directors accountable....not only for Disney, but for all companies.

 

[Peter Pirate]

manning, could you please elaborate as I haven't been following the suit and its ramifications, although maybe I should be!

 

[Sarangel]

Those of you following this thread may have notice a few posts that have been removed. These have been removed because they consisted on nothing more than personal attacks on individual posters (and commentary on those attacks). I remind you all that personal attacks are not allowed on this board.

Sarangel

 

[DVCconvert]

Sorry Sarangel,

while I may have felt it "necessary" to respond to attacks, I do hope that Peter know's what I said in my last deleted post about his daugther illness was sincere.

And I'd still like to see a review of the Adventureland Verandah!

 

[Peter Pirate]

Sara, although I thought I was the one responding to personal attacks, I too apologize.

Also, thanks for the kind thoughts re: my daughter Convert. She is doing fine (getting no worse) and we will be travelling to Mayo again very soon for positive results, I'm sure.

I do not understand the Adventureland Verandah joke. What am I missing?

 

[DVCconvert]

I do not understand the Adventureland Verandah joke.

Peter, when you had joked by asking if it were ok to post on the Restaurant Board (after some comments about the up-to-dateness of research), I suggested you could perhaps write a review on an MK eatiery which closed back in the early in the 1990's.

It was located just over the bridge into Adentureland (from the hub) on the right. A part of that has more recently been used as an MK smoking area.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Ahhhh, I'm just a little slow on the upbeat...Although I'm pretty sure it was actually open last month...

 

[manning]

manning, could you please elaborate as I haven't been following the suit and its ramifications, although maybe I should be!

All quotes are from the article.


An article about the case appeared in the Jan 30 edition of the Chicago Tribune business section by Andrew Countryman and is entitled "Disney case has full attention of directors"

Here is a summary as best I can:


This case is in the Delaware Court of Chancery. It's about whether the Disney directors were grossly asleep when it came to the hiring and firing of Michael Orvitz.

"However the case turns out, experts said, it already has had an effect on corporate directors across the country."

According to Warren Neel, executive director of the corporate the Governance Center at the University of Tennessee. "Directors who simply rubber stamp key hiring decisions do so at their peril he said. Now you are going to get very involved in senior management selection. You might go with the CEO, but you can voice your concern"

"one reason experts said:The case may make it easier for investors to seek penalties from directors themselves, rather than from their insurers which has been a daunting task"

""Certainly if the plaintiffs win, you'll see more of these cases" said John Faldetta Jr an attorney with Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis in Nashville , who has written on the Disney case. The case so far "difinitely gives them [investors] the ammunition" he said"

The article is long and goes on about other companies facing legal action.

Also it points out that the courts usually give the boards the benefit of the doubt, but the ruling of Chancellor in 2003 to allow the case to go forward alone has corporate directors shuddering.

Observers are awaiting a final decision in the coming weeks.

I'm sure I have left a lot out of this article. You may be able to get it from their archives for a small fee.

 

[jimmytammy]

Im still siding with Roy and Stan on this. I dont think those who supported SaveDisney last year have gone completely fickle and just given up. For some reason, SaveDisney has laid low this year and IMO I think it is just strategy. Maybe Roy and Stan are letting the shareholders speak for themselves this year, who knows? I too cant read another mans motives.

For me personally, I withheld nominations for Eisner. He has done great things in the past, but its time for him to step aside. He could have done it with dignity, now he is being told, we dont want you anymore. Nobody wants to be told that.

 

[Mickmse2002]

What makes everyone assume Roy shared Uncle Walt's vision or genius? From the autobiographies of Walt that I have read Walt couldn't stand his nephew Roy and was very fearful of what would happen to the company under the direct leadership of Roy Sr. and Roy Jr. at his passing.

 

[DVCconvert]

What makes everyone assume Roy shared Uncle Walt's vision or genius?

It would be interesting to know (for certain) how many folks involved in this discussion have actually had the chance to meet, spend time with, and talk to Roy for their opinions.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I have. I visited him at his Malibu Beach House in 2003 for a week and he told me he was in it for the money.

 

[WDSearcher]

I'm weighing in late here, so please bear with me.

To whoever said that Tokyo DL and Tokyo DisneySea prove that more money in equals more money out ... well, yes and no. We've all seen things that have had plenty of money dumped into them, only to turn out badly. "Pearl Harbor" comes to mind almost immediately. What Tokyo has -- in addition to more money than they know what to do with -- is some great creative vision. What they do NOT have is a true idea of how to use it. Yes, they have some amazing shows and stages and events and attractions. But a lot of them are just that -- amazing shows and stages and events. They don't fit into anything -- "Rhythms of the World" in a park that bases it's entire brand as "the sea?" A Christmas show that had everything but Santa's Christmas sink, simply because they had enough money to put in all the elves and reindeer and presents and characters and snowmen and Christmas trees AND a miniature version of Candlelight? TDS and TDL need to realize that just having money doesnt' make you better. It's how you use it. Granted, they are, hands down, the best Disney parks out there, but they're close to being out of control.

Regarding Roy and his motives ... it'll be no surprise to anyone here that I've thought since the beginning that Roy and Stan were out to "get Eisner" not "save Disney." And for those who believe that the two things are one in the same, I don't agree with that either. Just because you bring in a different CEO doesn't mean you bring in a better CEO. I agree with the Pirate where Comcast is concerned -- Roy and Stan seemed more concerned about how much the offer was for than they were about what a take-over would have meant to the assets of the Walt Disney Company. They were all about the money, not the independence, and I defy anyone to explain to me how being owned by Comcast -- for any price -- would have "saved Disney."

Last year we went round and round about how Roy had no idea how to "manage the peace," so to speak. He led a huge, successful, passionate stockholder revolt, and then ... well ... nothing. How many people thought that the stockholder vote last year was the END of the journey? That if everyone voted against Eisner, that ME would be gone and all would be well? It wasn't, obviously, it was just the beginning, and I think maybe even Roy didn't realize how formidable an opponent he had chosen.

Roy isn't Walt, and I don't think he ever wanted to be. He got thrust into the role because his last name was Disney. Even his kids aren't interested. Walt's daughter isn't really fond of Roy and didn't back him in his efforts. Roy had a history of quitting and walking away when he didn't get his way -- sometimes it worked for him (as it did with the Michael / Frank team), sometimes it didn't. There are some things that he opened peoples' eyes to, and a lot of shareholders voted his way last year simply because he told them to. If he'd have had a plan for what to do AFTER the meeting, he could have taken the whole enchilada. But he didn't. That's where he and Stan failed.

 

[DVCconvert]

and I think maybe even Roy didn't realize how formidable an opponent he had chosen.

Oh contraire WD, Roy was Doctor Frankenstein in this case, He knew/knows exactly the 'quality' of the beast.

I thought it 'odd' we hadn't hear from you here for some weeks/months! ...welcome back!

And unless your a fat lady who is singing, perhaps this saga isn't over!

Your evaluation of Roy's motives have been incorrect since the begining. No one that I know of has ever said "any" new CEO would be better Ei$ner, a number of 'names' pop into mind quickly (Ken Lay, Bernie Evers, Adolf Hitler, etc)

Is money at the root of this....proably. Does it have to be created in a sterile 'wall street way'? no. This company still has(despite managments best attempts - btw, any comments on the pending layoffs of WDI at WDW?) exceptionaly gifted cast members who in concert with an envisioned management could return the company to profitability driven by creativity rather than accounting gimicks and shoddy movies & park investments.