www.savedisney.com--interested or not?

[disneycrazed139]

Why WILL you or WON'T you sign the petition to oust Eisner?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by disneycrazed139
Why WILL you or WON'T you sign the petition to oust Eisner?

Won't...

 

[disneycrazed139]

Steve,

You said "won't" but you didn't answer the question...why?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Sorry ...

Waste of time and effort. Disney is owned by stockholders, not the general public. It's nice to be able to voice an opinion, but it doesn't mean anyone is listening, or if they are listening that they care.

 

[Chuck S]

Won't...and I am a stockholder. There are no clear plans for the future if Roy and Stan succeed, no proposed alternate slate of board members...nothing, except the mention of Steve Jobs...and he (IMO) is not capable of taking the reins at the WDC.

If SaveDisney had presented a clear and concise plan to rehab the company, an alternate slate of officers, how each step could be implemented I may have considered it. Also, another thing that concerns me, is that seemingly no-one else in the Disney family---none of the heirs, appear to be remotely interested in the day to day operations of the company. And the fact that Roy and Miller (Diane Disney's husband) had no clear vision of the future of the company prior to Eisner being hired in the 1980s. It all seems like sour grapes.

 

[manning]

Waste of time and effort. Disney is owned by stockholders, not the general public.

I own stock and consider myself as part of the general public? What part of the population do you have to be in to own stock?


Privately held company -- a company owned by one or more and no stocks are issued.

Publicly held company -- a company owned by stock holders comprised of anyone willing to buy the stock.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by manning
I own stock and consider myself as part of the general public? What part of the population do you have to be in to own stock?


Privately held company -- a company owned by one or more and no stocks are issued.

Publicly held company -- a company owned by stock holders comprised of anyone willing to buy the stock.

Who do you think Disney would listen to: stockholders of the company or the "general public" as represented by some Internet petition? Which group is going to play a deciding factor in guiding the company -- the stockholders or people who sign an Internet petition?

I can claim on the Internet to be a Disney stockholder, but that means nothing. Whether or not I have registered shares of Disney stock to vote is what means something to the company.

As Chuck S said -- another sour grapes effort aimed at generating public support for a Disney coup. It's just laughable to watch all the antics at work.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Signed the petition and voted my shares.

Eeyore..............you may be right that the effort may not accomplish much in the end, but it did feel good to actually vote my shares in a manner that recognizes that Eisner has taken the company in the wrong direction for too long a time.

I've not been the harshest of Disney critics over the years, but more recently things like the closure of the Feature Animation department in Florida show that current Disney management shows little interest in the roots that made The Walt Disney Company what it is. As a shareholder, it is encouraging to see the stock up a bit, but it has underperformed for so long, and the rebound is not a reflection of the positive effects of Eisner's leadership, IMHO. The board may not think the average shareholder can see through the information they presented to stockholders in their recent letter, but most are smarter than that.

Regarding Roy and Stanley's failure to offer an alternate slate of directors, there may be good reason for that. Under proposed rules put forth by the SEC in October, shareholders have the opportunity to offer their own slate of candidates to replace any board members receiving less than 65% of the vote. Perhaps it would be better to wait until that happens, if that ever happens, to tip a hand.

Who knows where, if anywhere, Roy and Stanley's efforts will go. I firmly believe they care much more about what happens to the Disney name and the Disney Company in the long term than does Eisner. I hope for the best for the sake of the long term future of a company that has given my family many wonderful memories over the year, and for the sake of shares that could be doing much better. I just have a hard time seeing how any move away from Eisner's leadership could represent a step backwards.

 

[KNWVIKING]

I won't sign because I don't know what I'll get in return. Will an un-employeed Eisner cure all of the problems at Disney ? Will the new guy "get it" ? I think if Roy were confident he could oust ME, then he'd already have those questions answered. Why hasn't he spelled out on his website just who will be the new CEO and why he wa chosen ? Too many unanswered questions.

 

[manning]

Doing nothing means nothing definitely doesn't get done.

Doing something means something can get done, whatever the odds are.

Roy may fail, but he may put into motion the demise of Eisner.

What's that saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

I choose to be laughable than lose by default.

 

[hopemax]

Supporting Roy at this point is mostly about getting options on the table. Right now, only the nominating committee can put up an alternative slate. If Roy were to announce an alternative slate now, shareholders can't vote for them. Voting, "no" on Eisner won't elect them this year. All it does is that it gives Eisner a longer period of time to mount a campaign against that person. Why should Roy do that?

A "no" vote now says, "I am unhappy with Eisner, I want to see another choice." And when the choice is presented, you can still vote for Eisner if you think he's the lesser of two evils.

 

[airlarry!]

Count me in as laughable, too, because I am voting with savedisney too.

I will give Roy Disney and Stanley Gold the opportunity they deserve to outline their plans if this vote grants them the authority to propose an alternate slate.

This 'vote of no confidence' is my first chance to express my displeasure, as is my right as a shareholder, at:

Fox Family purchase
Demise of Traditional Animation
Unnecessary litigation
Bungling of the Pixar Deal
Lack of maintenance in the parks
Ei$ner philosophy of park-building

Besides, I trust Mr. Disney and Mr. Gold's judgment concerning the future of the company over that of Mr. Ei$ner.

Anyone else want to get laughed at for expressing your displeasure? You are welcome to stand with me.

 

[raidermatt]

As a shareholder and member of the general public, I have signed, and will vote my shares accordingly (as soon as I get my voting materials...)

DK, manning, Hope and Larry summed up the reasons why one should do this if they are not happy with the current situation.

You've only got two choices. Support the current team, or support those calling for change.

For all practical purposes, doing nothing is supporting the current regime. Nothing wrong with that of course... free country and all.

Supporting those calling for a change does not mean you are supporting whoever they want to put in power. It only means they may have a chance to present you with options. You will still have the opportunity to vote either for or against those options when the time comes.

 

[Goofyposter]

You'd better believe I registered!!! And I"m CERTAINLY voting (as a Stockholder) AGAINST EI$NER !!!!!

Why?.....if you have high speed access.....and windows media player....this is why (in part).....Watch Video


Ei$ner, in my mind lost the vision some time ago.....while the stock might rise in the short term....because his only vision is short term....it will fail in the longer term.

Walt, Roy Sr., Roy Jr., Diane and the rest of the family know/knew that if the company followed the the general philosophies of Walt's....it would make it in the long term!....with Money Mike.....I'd wager in another 20 years (or less)....there won't be any Walt Disney Company.

 

[jimmytammy]

I am voting as a shareholder as Roy Disney recommends. I dont think Eisner alone has gotten the Disney Co to the point it is today but he seems to be operating in a very wishy washy manner, a sort of I dont care approach. Disney stock could drop $10 tommorow, he could sell, and what would he care, he would still be a very rich man.
The way he conducts his business affairs, trying to make quick fixes for the shareholders, like closing Animation Fla., doesnt impress me at all.
The sad part is most shareholders will vote their proxy as board recommends, want give it a thought. The big shareholders will make a difference.
Bottom line is...how many are in Roys court and how many are in Eisners...we'll soon see

 

[airlarry!]

Wow, thank you for this link, I must have missed it.

This is a powerful, powerful interview. He challenges the board by saying he and the Walties* did indeed try to work behind the scenes without making noise for at least a year and half to two years.

Let's see if the Mikeys* respond with those letters and conversations. Me thinks not.





*Credit: Raidermatt