Eisner Resigns!!!!!!!

[Captain Crook]

Well, not really, but if he did what specifically do the occupants of the various cars expect to see change about Disney, especially shorterm? The stock is in the toilet (again), the movie business is up & down, the theme parks have to operate from now on under the spector of terrorist activity & ABC really, really needs help.

Just what hope do you folks hope to gain by an abrupt Eisner departure (one where he isn't choosing his successor)? Will the new guy, whoever he is, not have to satisfy the stockholders via wal st.? Will the new guy not be responsible for turning ABC around? Will the new guy not have to make the film sector viable again? With all of this it seems that any hope of returning past glory to the parks will be put on hold for what may seem like forever.

Sure a new creative boss will may allow individual thought process an decision making at a much lower level than Eisner but what if it still comes out Dino-Rama? Who knows how many people in this position or capable of this position in the 21st Century will really care if they ever create POC again?

OK. I'm not being a smart-aleck and am not intending to boost Eisner's stock, I just would like to hear your perspectives on what could logically be expected from a CEO change particularily as it relates to the Parks...

As to the thread title...Landbaron, did I get you again?

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Just what hope do you folks hope to gain by an abrupt Eisner departure

Okay, who is "you folks?"

Personally, I don't think anything is going to change. There are starting to be rumblings that Eisner's under pressure, but the rumblings I've heard all have to do with numbers and stock performance. If the next corporate structure sees the entertainment as the tool to achieve the real financial goal, we're still in the same boat.

Someone in a position of power has to see that the financials are the tool to achieve the real entertainment goals. That would put the company's focus back on the important end of the Magic, and differentiate Disney from its competitors.

Jeff

 

[Captain Crook]

Okay, who is you folks?

No hidden jabs or innuendo, I only meant all of those here on the DIS Rumor Board, no matter which car they ride in, that feel Mikey must go now...

 

[YoHo]

You are a Mean mean Person. I was wise to click the thread before I did my Dance of Joy.


You know sometimes in the buisness world its just time for a change. Any change. it isn't about past successes or even potential future success. TO me, Eisner is simply no longer the man for the Job. Not because he's an idiot or anything like that. He's Uther Pendragon and it's time for Arthur. Or for those of us that are more Religous, he's Saul and its time for David to step to the plate.


That's my feeling anyway.

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by YoHo
Or for those of us that are more Religous, he's Saul and its time for David to step to the plate.

That is a great analogy!!!

With the talent drain Disney has experienced the last 5 years I worry that next CEO will have a very difficult job turning the company around. More than likely it will take 5 years for us to see any big change (ie, new attractions, better movies and shows).

 

[hopemax]

I guess the biggest thing I would hope would happen is a re-examination and hopefully reversal of some recent decisions. I don't believe Eisner at this point can do things like selling off Fox Family or re-start animation in Burbank (just the first examples that popped into my head) without the Wall Street types asking, "Wait, didn't you green-light those decisions in the first place?" It still leaves a negative or uncertain cloud surrounding the decision making of the executive offices. Is Eisner going to do another 180 in 6 months?

But I think if a new person were to come in and make those same decisions, it would be viewed as "This guy has a plan, let see what happens." Any negative aspects could be thrown back onto "previous management."

 

[manning]

Does anyone really want Eisnor to pick a successor? Saw this happen in a big company, and I mean big. That company is no longer around.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hmmm. Not making many friends today, are we Captain?

That's OK. I still loves ya!!

 

[airlarry!]

This is a great question, Mon Capitaine, but impossible to answer. Obviously, it depends on what kind of leader takes over. A creative guy reignites the imagination people in the Company, leading many to return back to the fold and back into the creation of good product? Or a numbers guy wo decides that the company is worth more separate than it is together? Or yet another product salesman, more concerned with the pitch then the principle?

My best hope is that the board chooses someone (or has it chosen for them) who is a magnet for creativity, if not an artist in and of himself or herself. My best guess is that they replace him with a Big Ego from some Entertainment/Retail conglomerate....and we still have somebody to bash on the boards.

 

[Bob O]

With the stock price now under $20. he should resign before he pushes the company furthur into the ground!!!

 

[BRERALEX]

Never clicked on a thread quicker you M.......

 

[Bstanley]

IMHO what we should hope for is two people.

Historically Disney has not done as well when it was tethered to a single mind - although I guess there is an argument that Roy did fine during the years after Walt died and before Card Walker took over - but I would contend that he still had Walt 'beside' him...

And I agree that it is time for the big ME to 'pursue other interests'.

If I were King I would be looking for a Showman and a CFO.

JK and GW, but I would imagine the odds of GW coming back are slim to none...

 

[Bob O]

They need a return to a team like it was before, eisner/wells. The job is too big for one person, escpecially when one micro manages as much as eisner does.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

I think, especially given the current corporate climate, that it's important who you surround yourself with. You can't have all idea men or all money men, but a nice combination with one final goal in their minds, with differing routes to get there.

The inital effects of the Eisner regime were successful because he had Frank Wells & allowed areas of creativity like WDI & the Ani. deptartment to flex their creative muscles without being hindered financially nearly as much as these days.

Then things changed. The bottom line became the paramount concern & reaching higher grounds fell to the way-side.

I think you have to look at the company ethos. Companies are either ones that are about ideas that make money or ones that are about money with some ideas. Unfortunately it's slipped from the former into the latter. If I had my druthers, I'd make sure that the head honcho was always an idea person surrounded by compitent money people.

*sigh* I guess I'm just a hopeless idea person.

 

[YoHo]

The Company Could be run by one person If that Person as Jeff in the bigD suggests surrounds himself and listens to truely creatuve people.

 

[Planogirl]

Captain, that was unkind!

Oh well, I agree with Jeff in BigD.

 

[Bob O]

eisner has too much of a ego to surround himself with equally talented people, apparently he feels threatened by that. Instead he puts yes men in place and fires them when things go bad w/o taking any responsibility himself.

 

[marty3d]

I think there's one thing that we're overlooking. Eisner may have an inflated ego but his single biggest accomplishement is that he has kept Disney independent. The greatest danger of the post-Eisner era will be the temptation to allow the company to fall into the hands of a larger company (Comcast & Microsoft are only 2 that have been mentioned). This could seriously dilute the "Disney Magic" further - and what would stop the new owners from selling Disney off piecemeal?

While I do believe that it will soon be time for Eisner to go, I seriousll hope that he is involved in choosing a successor who will keep Disney independent. As long as Eisner is still around, Disney will still be around.

 

[YoHo]

Quite Frankly I fail to see how a Disney owned by a Larger company is garunteed a bad thing.

1: Any company with common sense realizes that the Themeparks and the filmed entertainment group particularly Animated go hand in hand. they would be foolish to seperate them.

2: Everything else disney owns from Cable to ABC is a stupid Waste and I wouldn't mind seeing it go.

So I realize the other Pirate around here has been harping on this for a while, but I just don't see it anymore.

 

[Bob O]

I would agree with YoHo. eisner may have kept the company independant but has done so by going far away from what it was and now the parks/movies are also a smaller part of a larger company with many divisions. Be part of a bigger company may be a good thing or bad thing, counts on who buys it and what their plans are. eisner has used the parks to siphon off money and too pay for his many endeavors.