Are we expecting too much from Roy?

[WDSearcher]

Disney is also a unique case in that with most companies, if the management or the board p*sses you off, you just sell your shares and buy in a company that doesn't. A lot of Disney shareholders would never think to sell their shares, because of the emotional value. Not too many people are emotional about, say, IBM.

I equate holding shares of Disney stock to being a Green Bay Packer fan. If you're a Packer fan, doesn't matter if the team is having a good year or a bad year -- you go to the game, you sit in the stadium, and even if it's 105-0 with six minutes left, you stay, because you remember the glory days and you know that there just might be a chance ...

Same with Disney stockholders. The stockholders are there because they have an emotional connection. It's NOT "just business." And that emotion can be near impossible for a BOD to satisfy, no matter what they do.

 

[dcentity2000]

Roy spend thousands if not hundreds of thousands of US dollars (millions I think - around 2.8?) on pet projects - which he axed.

Eisner bullied him out and saved Disney from what was described at the time as 'certain liquidation'.

Things aren't so good now.

Roy Disney --> sounds like Walt Disney --> Saviour


If there is logic to this, then this law student and Disney shareholder doesn't get it.




Rich::

 

[raidermatt]

Searcher, there is some truth to what you are saying. However, there's also the funds. Certainly CalPERS and CalSTRS are not hanging on for emotional reasons.

With those who do, it also means the company gets a benefit. Selling lowers the stock price, so by holding for emotional reasons, shareholders are giving the stock a boost other companies do not get.

Regardless, I don't think this has much of an impact, as most of the "emotional" shareholders hold very little stock in the big picture.

No, most people will hold if they think the company should is under-valued, and their investment will pay off either through a buyout or improved management. That's what is happening here.

Roy Disney --> sounds like Walt Disney --> Saviour

If there is logic to this, then this law student and Disney shareholder doesn't get it.

Just as one should not get sucked in by the hype, one should not get turned off by the hype. Just ignore it.

Regardless of whether Eisner was the right guy at one time, he isn't the right guy now. We need alternatives, or the company will likely be bought out, or take defensive measures detrimental to its long term well-being.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt Searcher, there is some truth to what you are saying. However, there's also the funds. Certainly CalPERS and CalSTRS are not hanging on for emotional reasons.

Agreed. But the funds are also going to look at the BOD from a financial standpoint, which is tangible. If the board keeps Eisner in place as CEO and the profit margins climb and the earnings forecasts are met, will they still be voting "no confidence" next year, or will they be mollified because the financials are doing well? Chances are, they'll continue to wait and watch and not push for changes, even if there are still burned out lightbulbs in the parks.

The small shareholders, on the other hand, are thinking in intangibles -- "magic," if you will. If their stock goes up, but there is still chipping paint on Main Street and no E-Nights in March, they'll be back there rallying behind Roy, chanting "Fire Eisner."

There are a lot of people right now that are thinking, "This is so easy ... just fire the guy." But there's more to it than that. In choosing to keep Eisner or search for a replacement, the Board has to make a choice that satisfies both the left brain folks and the right brain folks, or one of those groups will still be screaming foul.

Regardless of whether Eisner was the right guy at one time, he isn't the right guy now. We need alternatives, or the company will likely be bought out, or take defensive measures detrimental to its long term well-being.

Yes.

 

[JudithM]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
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. ...

At the meeting Tuesday Roy Disney, Stanley Gold & Michael McConnell made it clear that there is more to Saving Disney than just losing Michael Eisner. Stanley Gold specifically discussed reform of governance, hiring new leadship, inspiring creative voice, & being more repsonsive & effective to shareholders, CMs, etc. Roy Disney specifically mentioned changes including new management, creativity to run the company, cleanliness & maintenance in the parks, fixing the ABC netwrok, making Disney a better corporate citizen, & " just plain being Disney again," etc.

 

[JudithM]

Originally posted by 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?

I asked a Save Disney volunteer this question at the Save Disney meeting on Tuesday. Walt had two daughters - Diane & Sharon. According to the volunteer Sharon died a few years ago, had two children, & they are not interested/involved. Diane's husband Ron Miller was the person Eisner replaced in 1984 with Roy leading the campaign for a change. The implication is there was/is bad blood between cousins. Diane & Ron have seven children who, according to the volunteer, are more interested in preserving their grandfather's memory as an individual rather than a corporate symbol.

Roy has four children who were introduced at the meeting - two sons & two daughters.

Personally I think it is a sad day when no member of the Disney family is on the Board of Directors.

 

[airlarry!]

Friends:

The issue is simple, and it is not "Don't get rid of Ei$ner until you have a plan" (which is what M. Crusader is advocating, I believe).

The question, in reality, is who do you trust?

Do you believe that Ei$nerstein and Igor can 'bring back the magic?' Do you have faith that if left alone they will bring Disney back to whatever you think it should be?

Or do you believe instead that an outsider (I shudder to call him that--but Ei$ner has forced this abominatin on us) like Mr. Disney and Mr. Gold if given the chance to help shape the future of Disney with their advice on an immediate successor is the correct choice?

Simply put:

Which is better---letting Ei$ner and his progeny determine the future of the company, or let someone picked by Roy and Stanley?

I know where I vote, and its not with the hoarse guy.

P.S., I've played along with the Mikey is great mantra only for the purpose of the post-1994-Mikey is bad karma that is leading to his removal.

I reiterate (and I know I'm not alone): The jury is out as to how much Michael Eisner can be credited for the success of The Walt Disney Company from 1984-1994. Someone said that posters on this board all agree that Eisner was the savior from 84-94. Don't lump me in that group, I think Eisner accidently pulled the finger out of the **** and has been trying his best to stick his finger back in it ever since.

 

[freediverdude]

My little pet theory (no real basis for the theory, just speculation), is that Eisner is basically just a cost cutter. And Disney had a lot of extra that could be cut, and it took 10 years to get to the point where the cuts really started hurting. Then of course the last 10 years have really been downhill.

 

[dcentity2000]

Eisner was invited to Disney in 1984 and quite literally pulled the company out of a power dive - the company had been drunk on it's own past success, having been under the illusiion that pixie dust could replace cold hard business. In the end, that cold hard business proved to be what Disney needed in order just to keep that Pixie Dust alive:

Disney depended on the cyclical theme-park business for almost 80% of its operating income and on movies for only 1%. Eisner revived Disney's movies to 43% of its income from movies, and only 35%of this from its theme-parks. The old Disney brought in less than 9% of its revenues from overseas, while today it brings in 23%. The old Disney toyed in the resort business with 2,894 hotel rooms, while the new Disney offers 21,586 rooms at 21 different resorts.

Recently, though, Eisner has been less fortunate - although his Disney saw the Lion King it has also seen Atlantis - a film that flopped. Trends such as Pixar CG animation and black humour damaged the company, which is currently very much on the mend with rising stock and large profits as well as large, new deals.

Eisner is currently fending off Comcast along with his board as Disney dissidents fight to oust him, blaming him for the company's bad luck. These people want Roy Disney back, a man who Eisner bullied out of the company because of poor ecnomic sense and misuse of funds. Walt commonly referred to Roy as "the Idiot Nephew"

Roy left of his own accord just a few years back after Eisner flipped at him following a 'demand' for a brand spanking new office in a prime location at costs to Disney and Roy terminating all of his 'pet projects' at a $2.8m loss to the company and no financial gain.

Newspaper articles from 1984 suggested at a possible Disney break up, with the parks becoming independant and the film studios becoming part of Universal.

To Roy's credit, he had fought passionately for his uncle's company, despite his uncle having declared Roy as the most unfit person in the world to control such a beautiful dream. You gotta admire that.



Rich::

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by JudithM
At the meeting Tuesday Roy Disney, Stanley Gold & Michael McConnell made it clear that there is more to Saving Disney than just losing Michael Eisner. Stanley Gold specifically discussed reform of governance, hiring new leadship, inspiring creative voice, & being more repsonsive & effective to shareholders, CMs, etc. Roy Disney specifically mentioned changes including new management, creativity to run the company, cleanliness & maintenance in the parks, fixing the ABC netwrok, making Disney a better corporate citizen, & " just plain being Disney again," etc.

Great. I'd love to see their plan on how that would all happen. We haven't yet seen any slate or short list from them, nor have they said anything about how all this would be accomplished other than "with new management."

The thing that worries me is that both Roy and Stan acknowledge that all of this work must be done to restore and "save Disney", but they seem to think it should happen instantly. Any intelligent middle schooler can look at the list of items above and understand that there's a little time required to make that all happen. The question is, do we want it done NOW, or do we want it done well? Personally, I'd rather assign some time to things and get them done right, so that we don't have to go through this again in a couple of years. Put a timeline on everything and then let people do their jobs.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by airlarry!
Which is better---letting Ei$ner and his progeny determine the future of the company, or let someone picked by Roy and Stanley?

I would LOVE to have Roy and Stanley participate in the chosing of the "new guy." Let's see their list. People have been asking for months who they think should be in charge. Now that the vote is done, what are they waiting for??

However .... I don't think it should be totally left to them. It needs to be a joint effort between the board (OK ... let's say just the board members that Roy and Stan DON'T have a problem with) and the "Save Disney" camp. Roy understands the emotion of the parks and animation, but I'm not convinced that he has a firm handle on the inner workings of the company or its finances. Stanley is a numbers guy, so I would hope that he would lend weight to the side of the argument that the company needs someone with creative vision AND business sense. My problem with leaving the decision to them alone is that they want so badly to get rid of Eisner that I'm afraid they'd take the first passable candidate who came along and not spend the time to find the exact right fit. The decision can't be left solely to the Board, nor can it be left solely to Roy & Stan. It's got to be a cooperative effort.

 

[Another Voice]

Roy's plan to save Disney seems a lot more concrete than Eisner's plan to produce sustained annual growth of 30%+.

I have yet to see a single list of how that can be down. Certainly any intelligent middle schooler understands you can't bank on having two hits the size of Finding Nemo and Pirates of the Caribbean each and every quarter. And the only plans for the parks are "no investment, more cuts". And each and every down rating sweeps period we're promised "next season we'll see ABC's turn around"

Frankly, I'm more willing to trust Roy saying "remove the problem and then we can work on the solution" rather than Eisner's "we'll just work harder at what got us into this mess in the first place" wishful thinking.

 

[WDSearcher]

That's the difference between us AV. I'm saying that both groups need to work together. You're still in the land where people have to be either totally right or totally wrong.

You say that Roy's plan to save Disney seems more concrete, but obviously then you're privy to more than the rest of us, because I haven't SEEN his plan. No one has. Even an article on the AP this morning said, "Roy Disney in particular often urges his supporters to help him 'restore the magic,' a phrase rich in nostalgia, but lacking in detail."

Show me a plan that -- as a shareholder and a cast member -- I can either get behind or reject. Show me an alternative. Don't just tell me it's out there ... show it to me. Then I've got something to work with. I guess I just don't understand why, if they've got this great plan, Roy and Stan are so reluctant to make it known. There are directors on the board who they DO approve of and who they DO like, so ... start there. Work with them. Or publicize it and let the press push it to the people. Or e-mail it out to the SaveDisney.com masses and let them push for the board to approve it. Something. But to just keep saying, "You're not doing enough," while at the same time doing nothing yourself, certainly doesn't move anything forward.

 

[Bstanley]

I don't know what Roy's Boyz might have in mind for Disney Inc - but it would presumptuous for them to put together a plan for the new management to follow like trained seals - ie instead of expecting the new folks to come up their own plans.

When The Big ME and FW took over in 1984 the Bass Bros didn't tell them what to do - they told the Bass Bros what they were going to do and convinced them to support it.

You know - it would be nice to know who is on Roy's 'short list' - but frankly unless someone happens to own a truly significant number of shares or is willing to buy them - that just isn't going to happen. This isn't an election where all our votes are equal. Roy's Boyz are undoubtedly wandering the countryside talking to the same people that they talked to last quarter - this time with a suggested set of new management. and until the deal is done "we the people" just aren't going to know that name - because "we the people" simply just don't own enough shares.

What is truly clear is that The Big ME and his present team of Senior management is grossly ineffective and needs to be replaced - THEIR plan is to do the same stuff they've been doing - just more of it - and that is is as pure a definition of insanity as I have ever heard:

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[crusader]

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Would that apply to recruiting CEO's as well?

I don't need Roy to disclose his entire short list. I need him to prevent the hostile takeover. So far I have yet to hear him or his partner denounce anything concerning Comcast. Why is that?

It's troubling to not hear anything beyond removing the CEO in a campaign to save a company while unscrupulous suitors are taking advantage of the situation. That's a big gamble at the expense of many who want change within the organization - not outside of it.

If he continues to simply speak about governance and weaken the leadership without demonstrating a clear vision, the volatility of the company may be too much to save.

 

[dcentity2000]

Actually, Roy has something about the takeover. He blames it entirely on Eisner

Last time his solution to stopping the takeover was to leave the company and hire Eisner, ironically Looks like he's got himself into a right pickle now!

Personally, I think that Roy is a nice old man with probably good family values who a) wants his job back please? and b) should be given SOME job as it would make Disney look all nice again and therefore raise the image

Crusader, I agree - it would be very nice to see a solution coming from Roy that didn't sound like it was out of a Dilbert (©) strip I'm sure he has one, so let's have it

Anyone who interprets this as an invitation to list numbers from mouseplanet or savedisney shall be enlisted for the Russian manned mission to Mars, on my honour




Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by airlarry! Which is better---letting Ei$ner and his progeny determine the future of the company, or let someone picked by Roy and Stanley?

Don't flame me, but I'd like to know who Roy and Stanley would pick this time Eisner was their choice last time, so if you don't like Eisner then perhaps this is the time to start doubting Roy's long term judgement in this field of choice

Maybe if he suggested a few and then put it to a vote...

What do we all think?



Rich::

 

[Bstanley]

Would that apply to recruiting CEO's as well?

Absolutely.

I don't need Roy to disclose his entire short list. I need him to prevent the hostile takeover. So far I have yet to hear him or his partner denounce anything concerning Comcast. Why is that?

Don't know, and if I did I probably wouldn't tell I can imagine some possibilities though.

1 - Maybe they've spoken with Comcast and actually like the idea.

2 - Maybe they've spoken with Comcast and worked out a deal - Comcast takes over Cap Cities, gets a sweetheart deal for the various Disney Channels, agrees to distribute a Vault Disnel Channel and Comcast will sell 'Classic' Disney to a consortium that Roy's Boyz have put together with the plan being to merge it with Pixar with Stevie J as chairman, Roy as Vice and Lasseter as head of the Studios. Hey - it could happen!

The point is - there are WAY too many ways this could go down. Even 'The Players' don't know what's going to happen. The only people with REAL information are those with a LOT of skin in the game. And in the game they are playing information is too valuable to give it away.

I agree it's disturbing to watch because we are all worried about what's going to happen to OUR Disney, but this is not a process that is going to go on out in the open like a Presidential election.


IMHO: 1) The present management has made a sufficient number of bad decisions over a sufficiently long period of time period to demonstrate that they need to be replaced - they simply are NOT functional. 2) I am more comfortable with Roy's Boyz putting forward possible new management teams to the institutional investors than anyone else who springs to mind.

 

[crusader]

The question, in reality, is who do you trust?

Well Larry, I can safely admit that I don't trust anybody in corporate america. It doesn't matter what name they bear - the games being played right now are on both sides. You want to blindly follow the leader that's fine. I'll cautiously remain informed and state my objections when things appear to be in question.

I don't share your Roy bandwagon sentiment mainly because I don't see demonstrative leadership coming from him, beyond using his name. If the general public were fully aware of the family politics, they may seriously question tactic, motive and capability here.

Most people don't get the big picture. They hear a Disney saying there's a problem and they look no further. The rationale is that any Disney should be involved in running the Disney company above and beyond any outsider. The issues don't hold very much relevance or importance in that perception.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by crusader
I don't share your Roy bandwagon sentiment mainly because I don't see demonstrative leadership coming from him, beyond using his name. If the general public were fully aware of the family politics, they may seriously question tactic, motive and capability here.

Most people don't get the big picture. They hear a Disney saying there's a problem and they look no further. The rationale is that any Disney should be involved in running the Disney company above and beyond any outsider. The issues don't hold very much relevance or importance in that perception.

Too right.

I do, however, feel that there should be A Disney family member involved somewhere, even if they have only a little power. As long as they can influence matters even in the slightest, I think that the romantic notion of a 'family dream' will be preserved and Disney will be all the better for that

And yes, as someone rightly said only the key players really know the truth of the matter. Let's just hope our guesses are at least NEAR enough to the truth to justify our own haughty comments



Rich::