Are we expecting too much from Roy?

[Disneycrazymom]

Just thinking about the sort of passive/aggressive move the BOD has made with Mitchell. 2 things come to mind: 1. What is the stock doing today? 2. Will Pixar be any more likely to deal with Mitchell?
As a stock holder I am angry that the BOD thinks that the move will allow them to go back to business as usual. If I, someone not into big corporate practices thinks this, others more important must be upset also.

 

[WDSearcher]

I don't think the BOD IS thinking that this move will let them go back to "business as usual." But you have to start somewhere, and not everything is going to happen with lightning speed simply because of the vote. I mean, it's not like the Board can just fire Eisner ... isn't one of the biggest criticisms against him that he HAS NO SUCCESSION PLAN? So, if the BOD says, "Goodbye Michael," then what? There's got to be someone available to step into the job, and there isn't yet. There's got to be a transition plan and a search and people have to be asked to do the job and then they have to accept and then they have to find someone to take over the job they're leaving. That's not something that's going to happen overnight.

I think that Roy and Stanley have been pushing the vote for so long, that people expected it to be the end of the journey, when it's really just the beginning. George Mitchell has been Chairman of the Board for less than 24 hours and people are wondering why he hasn't done anything yet.

As for Pixar ... I've said it before and I'll say it again ... Steve Jobs wants his own empire. He's been wanting it for years. All he really needs is a distribution deal. And there's enough interest in Pixar now that he has no real reason to go back to Disney. But even if he did, the deal he'd be offering would likely be exactly the same whether he was dealing with Michael, George, Roy, or anyone else -- distributiononly, at 10-12%; no profits; and Pixar owns all the rights to the films and characters, including the next two films, and retroactive to the very first Toy Story. Wasn't a good deal then, wouldn't be a good deal now.

 

[Bob O]

10 -12 percent of Pixar's future movies is better than nothing which is what disney will get once the contract is over. I gues disney just believes they are justified most of the profits wihtout having been involved in the creative aspects of these movies.
And Pixar doesnt need Disney at all ,but disney badly needs Pixar.
So i guess disney will be content to release awful direct to video sequel/prequles etc without adding anything of value into the pipline for the future. What disney considers a success L & S would be considered a dud for Pixar.
Of course im sure Home on the Range will outdo Find Nemo at the Box office.

 

[Bstanley]

You can't replace a guy until he's been removed. I didn't say that Roy's Boyz were finished, just that they had done what needed to be done.

Roy's Boyz have a list of possible CEO candidates - they may not have had one in December, but they certainly had one by February.

Based on the comments from Roy and Company over the last few days it looks like removing The Big ME is next on their list, but that's going to depend on whether the Board is willing to pull up their socks and do what they should and retire The Big ME.

It may be that the next move Roy's Boyz need to make is to shake up the board so that they can get a board in place that will do what needs to be done.

 

[crusader]

Bob O

Nobody will compare Home on the Range to Nemo. They will however compare The Incredibles to it. So given the fact that the next Pixar flick has that high of a bar to measure itself, what will be the reasoning behind anything short of that at the box office?

I disagree that the distribution deal as it was structured was the way to go with Pixar. Disney had to walk.

 

[crusader]

It may be that the next move Roy's Boyz need to make is to shake up the board so that they can get a board in place that will do what needs to be done.

Isn't that what they've already campaigned for? It wasn't just ME they asked for the no vote on.

The only message delivered by Stan yesterday was that the board was being given a second chance to do the right thing which was to get rid of Eisner.

This coming from a guy who's been on the board for 15 years and had an open forum for over 20 minutes to communicate directly with the shareholders what his vision was for the future of the company and why/how that vision was being impaired by the present oversight.

That didn't sit well with the woman to my right who hadn't made up her mind on which way to vote and wound up not supporting Roy and Stan because they didn't speak substantively.

 

[DisneyKidds]

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.

I wouldn't bet on that. Fact of the matter is that the Board had to do SOMETHING immediately after yesterday's vote. However, just about every article you read agrees that this move (splitting Chairman and CEO) alone will not be enough to satisfy stockholders and quiet the criticism/right the ship. As has been pointed out, there really isn't a succession plan in place and the Board doesn't have another CEO waiting in the wings. Unless Eisner does something drastic the Board will likely take more action in time. I'd be very surprised if they didn't act until another vote like this happens next year.

As for the whole Roy and Stan don't have a plan thing..........I wouldn't bet on that either. These guys went from a couple of supposed 'forced off the board sour grapes' guys to the effecting an unprecedented no confidence vote for the Chairman/CEO of the most respected entertainment company in the world. Don't think that there wasn't a heck of a lot that wen't in to accomplishing that, and I doubt that is all they have up their sleeve.

All of this is now a big strategic game of cat and mouse. What to do, when to do it, who will play.............I think we have a lot of interesting sideline watching left to do.

 

[crusader]

Kidds -

I didn't say there isn't a plan. I said, the plan as stated to us yesterday appeared to only be removing Eisner.

It's difficult for me to see how this equates to saving disney the company from a hostile takeover.

If the company reinstates animation, restores certain cutbacks and scales back on outsourcing while improving the quality of its' product - then what exactly is it that needs saving? Executive comp plans? Corporate governance issues which insure Roy remains an intregal part of the company?

I see many of these problems having solutions with any CEO. If the argument is that Eisner is not implementing change then I'll agree with the whole "save" the sinking ship campaign. However, this past year was a dramatic improvement and my guess is the company will continue on that track.

I don't care about the CEO issue as much as everyone here does only because I have yet to consider a viable alternative. Once that option becomes available, I'll be more open to the idea that it all relates to one guy.

 

[raidermatt]

I said he's gone anyway on one post so what the heck is it that you need to bite me?

You continue to read more into folks motivation than is there, and consequently miss the root issues.

You can't replace a guy until he's been removed.

Exactly. Maybe that's all in the works, and they just want to get some things in motion before making the final cut.

I suppose anything is possible.

Nobody will compare Home on the Range to Nemo.

Customers do, and they speak with their box office receipts. As you have said, Disney NEEDS to be king of the total box office receipts. Being able to say they went over a $1 billion last year helps them.

I disagree that the distribution deal as it was structured was the way to go with Pixar. Disney had to walk.

Maybe, maybe not. But the root issue is that they allowed themselves to be put in the position to begin with. Instead of beating Pixar to the punch, or at least working the last 10 years to catch-up, they rode the Apple-man's coat-tails, and now Eisner is taking mucho heat over it.

That didn't sit well with the woman to my right who hadn't made up her mind on which way to vote and wound up not supporting Roy and Stan because they didn't speak substantively.

Apparently it sat well with quite a few others. I'll trust the overall numbers moreso than the lady in the chair next to you.

Fact of the matter is that the Board had to do SOMETHING immediately after yesterday's vote....Unless Eisner does something drastic the Board will likely take more action in time....I think we have a lot of interesting sideline watching left to do.

I agree. I think they would LIKE the whole thing to go away, but there's no way they can think its over.

There's a chance they will cook up some scheme to keep Eisner as long as possible, but its probably too late for that.

 

[raidermatt]

If the company reinstates animation, restores certain cutbacks and scales back on outsourcing while improving the quality of its' product - then what exactly is it that needs saving?

Well, since they haven't done much of that, you already have your answer.

It's difficult for me to see how this equates to saving disney the company from a hostile takeover.

That isn't was Roy and Stan mean by "saving Disney".

Once that option becomes available, I'll be more open to the idea that it all relates to one guy.

A CEO sets the tone and strategic direction. The more power he/she has, the more impact they have.

How many options there are have nothing to do with that.

If an Eisner clone were put in power, then true, things wouldn't improve, but it would still go back to the guy in charge.

 

[bretsyboo]

matt, your turn in the basewball draft dude, drop this crap heap message board and come play with the cool "kidds"

 

[crusader]

Apparently it sat well with quite a few others. I'll trust the overall numbers moreso than the lady in the chair next to you.

Overall numbers? She's in the majority dude! Does that mean you trust her?

If an Eisner clone were put in power, then true, things wouldn't improve, but it would still go back to the guy in charge.

sorry, I was only referring to Eisner as the "guy" here not a general person. That clone is exactly what concerns me - or worse.

You're the one who said you'd be willing to vote just to hear the named successor. We're launching an oust campaign with some purported "short" list floating around and nobody has been assured of anything. If Brian Roberts is on that list in any position related to this company I want to know.

That isn't was Roy and Stan mean by "saving Disney".

Well it certainly should include preventing a hostile takeover. If it doesn't there's something wrong.

 

[raidermatt]

Well it certainly should include preventing a hostile takeover. If it doesn't there's something wrong.

Considering its the current regime that has put Disney in the position of being a takeover target, Roy and Stan look like the better choice.

Overall numbers? She's in the majority dude! Does that mean you trust her?

Not in the majority of votes cast. This isn't a political election. That means two things:

1- Non-votes go to the board.
2- A simple majority ain't good enough. Ask Steve Case.

 

[flyinglizard]

This has been a very interesting thread and a lot of great points have been made

If I may add just a few things for everyone to consider in the mix...

Roy Disney would rather be sailing his boat. His motivation to captain the "Save Disney" movement was equal parts "get even with Ei$ner" and "why isn't my stock value increasing?" That simple.

Many Disney stockholders and fans, including myself, jumped on board the "Save Disney" ship and voted with Roy and Stan. But we didn't make a big difference.

The mega shareholders like CalPERS, Ohio, New York etc., may very well have brought about the same result with out the help of Disney fans or "Save Disney". Sure Roy may have met with them, but I assure you, they had their own agenda planned.

Simply stated, R.O.I. is more important than Roy. Ei$ner had a license to steal (and he did!) until the day came when he failed to make a reasonable return on investment. Additionally, M.E. has now become a loose cannon.

Michael created his own "Ei$nerLand Kingdom" on the Board, but that can no longer protect him or his ego when he has lost the ability to manage to make a profit for the owners.

 

[crusader]

well said flyinglizard.

I agree with you.

Eisner held this company by its' throat and demanded his way with very little regard for the many employees who literally are the driving force behind our "magical" experience with Disney.

He made one fatal mistake in underestimating the power of the name Disney. He made another in silencing it.

I have no doubt he will be leaving. I only hope the company settles down and takes the necessary time to recruit the absolute best leadership for Disney. If the noise continues to hit the airwaves, (and positioning such a highly regarded politician at the helm of the board can do many things in terms of the media), it will only weaken the company further.

That won't accomplish Roy's mission regarding value - without jeopardizing independence. It will cripple it. As far as his goal concerning Eisner, I'll place well deserved money in Roy's favor.

 

[Mr D]

Does Roy have any heirs with a Disney name? he is after all about 75, is there any other Disney relative alive that can become a newer younger figurehead?


The whole thing of the last 20 years makes a person wish human cloning was possible and there still were viable DNA from Walt himself....

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Bob O
10 -12 percent of Pixar's future movies is better than nothing which is what disney will get once the contract is over. I gues disney just believes they are justified most of the profits wihtout having been involved in the creative aspects of these movies.
And Pixar doesnt need Disney at all ,but disney badly needs Pixar.
So i guess disney will be content to release awful direct to video sequel/prequles etc without adding anything of value into the pipline for the future. What disney considers a success L & S would be considered a dud for Pixar.
Of course im sure Home on the Range will outdo Find Nemo at the Box office.

I believe Disney expected part of the profits because they put in much of the development and production money. If you funded a venture for someone and that venture ended up being profitable, wouldn't you want to get a piece of that?

And I don't think Disney DOES "badly need Pixar." What Disney needs to do is to stop jobbing out its animated features and start doing them in-house again.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
That isn't was Roy and Stan mean by "saving Disney".

But I think that's what a lot of shareholders might think. People are more worried about WDW someday being Comcast World than they are about a lot of other Disney issues right now. Roy and Stan have equated saving Disney with losing Eisner. But I'm not sure a lot of the shareholders are that specific in their thinking. "Save Disney" can cover a lot of ground. If losing Eisner means that Disney is more ripe for a take-over and a hostile battle begins, or if losing Eisner brings in someone who is more partial to being owned by Comcast and a deal is made, have Royz Boyz really saved Disney? And if that were to happen, what would the ramifications be to Roy and Stan? They need to widen their focus as they move forward.

 

[crusader]

1- Non-votes go to the board.

Absolutely. Meaning, whomever didn't return a proxy didn't vote for a change in leadership. I know quite a few shareholders who did this for that very reason.

We may think that because we're all here we represent the majority. I don't believe we do.

And - given the disparity (20% approx.) between the second highest no-vote and Eisner it is clear that several of the stockholders/funds did not support the entire platform being presented by Roy and Stan.

They supported a segregation of duties but did not cast a vote in favor of the removal of several members of the Board. That is an actual voting majority - not the default premise you are touting.

 

[raidermatt]

Meaning, whomever didn't return a proxy didn't vote for a change in leadership.

There's also the "broker votes"

I know quite a few shareholders who did this for that very reason.

Sure, but statistically speaking, we know there are also those that meant to vote but didn't, never received their proxy, etc.

They supported a segregation of duties but did not cast a vote in favor of the removal of several members of the Board. That is an actual voting majority - not the default premise you are touting.

Without quibbling further over info we don't have anyway, I'll just again point out that a majority is not needed in this case.

Anything over 10% in a proxy vote is significant. 24% is about the limit of what has ever been seen, and 43% is off the charts.

Just like a company cannot afford to lose 25% of its customers, it cannot afford to p-off 25% of its shareholders.