Are we expecting too much from Roy?

[Peter Pirate]

Let me start by saying that I'm for Roy & Stan in moving Disney in a direction away from Eisner. But, is Roy perhaps getting too much 'good press' from the DIS minion and are 'we' trusting him as if he really 'gets it' when it may not be true.

Remember that Walt himself never liked his nephew, thought he was lazy and no account. Further, where was Roy for all of these years leading up to today? Surely he didn't just nortice the problems and the excesses of the Eisner regime last year...Yet, he chose to do nothing until he was (personally) being forced out.

Therefore I wonder what philosophy it is we're really supporting when we say we support Roy. Is it Walt's philosophy? Has Roy come to understand it after all of these years? Or is it just a philosophy of change spurred on by revenge or perhaps a financial agenda in seeing the stock undervalued at a time when he's ready to get out.

I know these questions may not be thought of in warm terms by some here but I do wonder just who Roy Disney is today?

 

[Luv2Roam]

I really think Roy proved himself long ago.
Walt would be surprised and proud to know how well Roy has fought for his name.
Is Roy perfect? I am sure not. But I would believe him over anyone else right now.

 

[Peter Pirate]

How has Roy "proved himself"? He did some good things within the realm of animation but nothing startling. So why would Walt be proud? Because he allowed Eisner to run roughshod for so many years without speaking up? I don't understand.

 

[Luv2Roam]

If you don't understand, nothing I will post will prove anything to you one way or another.

 

[toefungus]

How has Roy "proved himself"?

Take a trip back to around 1984......

 

[Peter Pirate]

...nothing I post will prove anything to you one way or another.

How so? I'm open for suggestions...That's why I post here. I want to think I'm doing right by suporting Roy but aside from the needed change I don't see it. But I'm always willing to listen to reason and if I'm coming across otherwise, I apologize.

 

[crusader]

No question Roy is highly regarded for who he represents to the many fans of this company.

He represents the family. I heard someone on a local news interview state that "whatever Roy tells me to do, I will" with no opinion one way or the other on the issues. It was apparent the main motivating factor was to do something because a "Disney" family member told you to.

You can't run on blind faith when the vulnerability of your company is at stake.

If Comcast wasn't rearing its' ugly head right now I wouldn't have a problem with an advocate (particularly one who bears the family name) using a podium to promulgate the philosphical ideal of the founders which brought this company to greatness in order to invigorate mass appeal in a coup d'etat.

But all I really heard was that they'll be back if Eisner doesn't leave.

I will say that I met several of the savedisney supporters and one main consensus was that they really didn't care who was running the company as long as it was run the way it had been prior to the cuts. Outsourcing was their main beef.

They also weren't entirely convinced Roy had a solid vision to implement, and shared my concerns about his ability to be a strong effective leader.

But that really didn't matter. He has provided a welcome forum for change and that appears to be enough - they feel the rest will eventually fall into place. (they do agree he's lacking in that capacity though.)

Gold seems to be driving the ship right now. Kinda like good cop/bad cop.

 

[Another Voice]

The bit that saves Roy from being just another Eisner is that Roy does not seek the power for himself. He knows he has neither the temperament nor the skill to run the company. Just as in 1984 he is looking so somehow who does.

I hope his search is successful this time and he doesn't settle.

 

[Galahad]

Remember that Walt himself never liked his nephew, thought he was lazy and no account.

But Roy was, what, 36 when Walt died. Weren't we all lazy no accounts at 36?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Galahad, I'm pretty much still a 'no account', but the difference between me and most is that I've ALWAYS known it...

Thanks crusader and Voice, those opinions are along the lines of what I was searching for.

As for Gold, he's been know to be tough for as long as I've heard his name and I can't help it and even though I share the same side of this issue with him, he makes me a bit uneasy.

Any insight on him?

 

[Bstanley]

I hope his search is successful this time and he doesn't settle.

Amen to that.

Roy's Boyz have done what they needed to do. It took them longer to recognize and act on the idea that The Big ME needed to 'pursue other interests' than some would have liked, but they did act and they did manage to put together enough votes to start the renewal process.

Considering that NOBODY on the street gave them a snowball's chance to do it without the help of someone with great wads of cash (ala 1984 and The Bass Brothers) they deserve a great big Tip of the Hat!

Hopefully there is someone of the likes of Frank Wells out there willing to take the job.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Another Voice
The bit that saves Roy from being just another Eisner is that Roy does not seek the power for himself. He knows he has neither the temperament nor the skill to run the company. Just as in 1984 he is looking so somehow who does.

ITA

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by toefungus
Take a trip back to around 1984......

OK ... what you're saying is that we should all follow Roy NOW because he proved himself in 1984.

But people on this board have been very clear that they believe Eisner did great things during the first ten years or so of his "reign" and yet we can't trust him now.

So ... If we should follow Roy because of what he did ten years ago, regardless of what he's done lately, why is that standard different for Michael?

(FYI ... I agree with AV in his sentiment that the difference is that Roy never wanted it all for himself. I'm just pointing out faulty logic. Please pull back the wolves.)

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Bstanley
Hopefully there is someone of the likes of Frank Wells out there willing to take the job.

Except that Frank Wells was a numbers guy, by his own admission. He was the perfect complement to Michael in the same way Roy Sr. was the perfect complement to Walt. The best scenario was the two of them working together.

You don't need someone like Frank Wells any more than you need another Michael Eisner. You need to find another Eisner/Wells or Roy/Walt TEAM, or at least someone who can handle both the right brain and left brain stuff on equal footing.

 

[Bstanley]

You're correct of course. But the impression I get is that Mr. Wells was very special.

First - I'm not convinced that Frank Wells was strictly a 'numbers' guy, but even assuming he was, he was MY kind of numbers guy.

By that I mean he was willing to listen to and work with the 'creative' folks, and importantly he was willing to accept a public position where he wasn't seen as the Head Man.

This speaks volumes about the guy - that he wasn't burdened with a GIANT EGO that would end up getting in his way whenever decisions were being made.

If I were the Director (Chairman) I would cast the Frank Wells character first - because I believe that the Creative folks would then flock to him.

 

[crusader]

Roy's Boyz have done what they needed to do.

There is alot more expected of Roy from his supporters than simply getting a change in Chairman. He didn't reveal any plan that I've seen and the soundbite was that they've got something in the works (per Stan of course) but aren't going to delve any further.

The reality is much different than the myth.

This is a great resource:

http://www.concernedshareholders.com/CCS_Disney.html

Particularly this section -

F. Unworkable Purported Safeguards



Institutional Investors provide a false sense of security to the investing public when they only "withhold" their votes. They send a "message" of impotence. Achieving Director accountability through embarrassment is a myth. "Disney now concedes that well over 30% of the votes cast at the meeting could go against Mr. Eisner... Disney executives are discussing ways they can play down what might be nasty results without appearing to be insensitive to shareholder wishes. One strategy is to sell the idea that next week's vote is not a referendum on Mr. Eisner, because to many different parties have weighed in with so many points of view. 'Different shareholders are using the same vote to send different messages,' say Judith Estrin, a Disney board member." (WSJ, 2/27/04, "Disney Shareholders' Revolt Widens") In other words, the message heard by the BOD is that Shareholders are impotent! "But even with the prospect of such an unusually vociferous no-confidence vote, the board is not likely to react quickly.... In the coming weeks and months, they said, the board will try to assess how much of the investor outcry is from the heart and how much is for publicity. … Some Disney … directors are said to regard last week's investor outbursts as so much media spin. This theory holds that some elected state officials who oversee pension plans are simply grabbing the spotlight to further their careers. By the same reckoning, the proxy advisers are trying up drum up new business as well as headlines. … [D]irectors will examine which big shareholders did not vote for Mr. Eisner and try to determine their reasons for doing so." (NYT, 2/29/01, "Disney Board Is Expected to Go Slowly on Eisner") In other words, Disney’s BOD has to try to read the minds of its largest Shareholders as there is no means to communicate with them. Further, Disney’s BOD feels anyone who dares to say anything against Eisner only does so due to ulterior motives. The conclusion is that the BOD, when confronted with criticism, will rationalize what amounts to its unaccountability to Shareholders.



“hareholders owning an estimated 43 percent … declined to support the re-election of Michael D. Eisner…. The mounting shareholder dissent prodded the board to strip Mr. Eisner of the chairman's title Wednesday night and give it to George J. Mitchell, Disney's presiding director and a former senator. Disney board members hope the split of the chairman and chief executive titles will pacify investors disgruntled about an underperforming stock price and Mr. Eisner's autocratic management style, according to three people close to the board's deliberations. …[T]he appointment is sure to be questioned by analysts and investors because the two men are friends and Mr. Mitchell has long been a loyal supporter of Mr. Eisner. … Since shareholders also withheld nearly 24 percent of the votes for Mr. Mitchell, some of the other board members worried that the decision to appoint him chairman would be criticized….” (NYT, 3/2/04, “Eisner Out as Disney Chairman but Remains as Chief Executive”) “Dissident shareholders question Mitchell’s ability to oversee Eisner because of this vocal support of the executive. He also has drawn fire from critics for having business ties to Disney in the past while sitting on the board. … Critics argue that the move is merely cosmetic and that nothing short of his departure from the company would end the controversy.” (3/4/04, LAT, “Disney’s Eisner Loses Top Post, Stays as CEO”)

 

[Luv2Roam]

Going back to the original question: Are we expecting too much from Roy?
I say Yes.
And are Roy and Stan saints themselves?
No. Just as none of us are. They are human. Just as Ei$ner is.
But the Stan/Roy team have achieved so much already and much more than anyone thought or hoped for.
The change needs to really come from the Disney BOD and upper management.
It's too bad Disney had to be beat into a corner and be forced to even look to be productive thinkers and doers.

 

[raidermatt]

crusader, to quote the 'great' Richard Dreyfus (as closely as I can from memory), "I believe you are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites you on the "rear".

Eisner is closer to being toast then you ever thought he would be.


Once again, the point of many is that Eisner is the wrong guy... about as wrong as you can get. And step one is to get him out.

No, Roy is not the Patron Saint of Disney shareholders, but he's got a better plan than Eisner. Eisner's "plan" (to make himself as rich and powerful as possible) is wrong for the company at every level.

That's the root issue, and it is inescapable. You can only deal with the options presented. While Roy's is not perfect, its better than Eisner, and its better than supporting a Comcast takeover outright.

Its really that simple.

 

[crusader]

Well thanks for that great laugh Matt.

I'm not ignoring the Eisner issue. I said he's gone anyway on one post so what the heck is it that you need to bite me?

Getting rid of Eisney without a plan beyond "let another guy run things and see how it goes" or "give it to Comcast and cash out" is not saving disney.

The message the fund managers gave yesterday was - we're fed up with the regime of the 90's and our investors refuse to finance our careers right now because they have absolutely no confidence in the system. Let's use Disney to pass the buck and look good in front of cameras. Maybe some much needed dinero will rollover in our direction as a result.

It certainly can't hurt. Stanley's got connections and Roy's got quite a portfolio.

Ok so now what?

 

[DemoBri1]

I'd have to agree with part of Crusader's message here. In other posts I have stated that what really is Roy and Stan's plan. We've basically heard nothing beyond getting rid of Eisner.

Now we have what I believe to be an even worse situation. The shareholders spoke out at the vote and the board reacted by putting Mitchell in. Eisner is still CEO and now his right-hand man is effectively running the company in a fashion as a baseball manager from dugout runway after being thrown out. Even though he's not Chairman anymore, do any of you think Eisner won't be calling the shots still?

Now, it will probably be until next year's meeting before the board will be prompted to do something else, unless something catastrophic happens in the meantime.