Bob Iger at WDW now ... BoD to Follow?

[EPCOTCenterLover]

ok, sure.

 

[TalkingHead]

Phil, did It's a Small World kill your puppy or did it urinate on your plush Figment or something?

I think Small World is one of the crowning achievements in art design in a theme park ride. It's a ride that has transcended American culture unlike virtually anything WDI has created in the last twenty years.

Like most other people, I couldn't care less about the history of the ride's sponsorship and I don't see what it has to do with evaluating the ride's achievements.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Yet the parks are still bursting at the seams.

24% peak crowds through the first six months.... Hardly seems sustainable.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Phil, did It's a Small World kill your puppy or did it urinate on your plush Figment or something?

I think Small World is one of the crowning achievements in art design in a theme park ride. It's a ride that has transcended American culture unlike virtually anything WDI has created in the last twenty years.

Like most other people, I couldn't care less about the history of the ride's sponsorship and I don't see what it has to do with evaluating the ride's achievements.

Haters gonna hate. Kneel to the power of the Tay-Tay and shake it off, shake it off

 

[Nemo14]

Haters gonna hate. Kneel to the power of the Tay-Tay and shake it off, shake it off

She's celebrating the 4th up here in RI.

 

[Phil12]

Phil, did It's a Small World kill your puppy or did it urinate on your plush Figment or something?

I think Small World is one of the crowning achievements in art design in a theme park ride. It's a ride that has transcended American culture unlike virtually anything WDI has created in the last twenty years.

Like most other people, I couldn't care less about the history of the ride's sponsorship and I don't see what it has to do with evaluating the ride's achievements.

I only use the explanation concerning the creation of the ride to help excuse Disney for creating such a boring attraction. They were under a very short and strict timetable (9 months) so they deserve credit for producing anything under those constraints. But it also explains the poor quality of the attraction. Pepsi sponsored the ride at the 1964 World' Fair and Pepsi was a corporate sponsor at Disneyland from its opening day until about 1990 for the Golden Horseshoe Saloon.

When the four attractions were built by WED for the 1964 World's Fair, Walt Disney already had decided that the rides would be shipped back and operated in Disneyland at the end of the fair. As we've established, Pepsi was embarrassed by the ride. When IASW returned to Disneyland it would have been a simple matter for Pepsi to sponsor IASW but they refused. Why? Because they thought the attraction was terrible. I agree with Pepsi.

 

[MattM]

Taking that as a given Why in the heck then is TWDC closing attractions left right and center at DHS and charging full price for a much diminished experience. Budgets and 114 per share stock notwithstanding this kind of stuff is usually only seen at companies in deep financial trouble.

Last years closing 5 major attractions, This year we are on track for what 3 majors and 2-3 minor attractions and still nothing but more closures... And now we hear that the budget cutting is in full swing at the supposed cash cow ESPN. Makes one wonder if the the next step at WDW is the bankruptcy auction of the 'Assets Of The Walt Disney Company' because the 'Going out of Business' vibe at WDW is unmistakable.

***rolls eyes***

 

[Magenta Panther]

Phil, did It's a Small World kill your puppy or did it urinate on your plush Figment or something?

I think Small World is one of the crowning achievements in art design in a theme park ride. It's a ride that has transcended American culture unlike virtually anything WDI has created in the last twenty years.

Like most other people, I couldn't care less about the history of the ride's sponsorship and I don't see what it has to do with evaluating the ride's achievements.

This. And I don't care what anyone says, I love the song.

 

[Cesar R M]

They could put a new muppet show anywhere theoretically. Just need a movie screen.

and the puppets/animatronics ?

 

[Cesar R M]

Yet the parks are still bursting at the seams.

means less repetitive customers and more once in a lifetime visitor.
aka people saving more than a year to get there.

and you know what that means? less addicted individuals and less franchise locked clients.

 

[stevehousse]

Fall?!?! So why did it take almost a year for BOD Meeting and the good news? ????

I would think that had to do with the Star Wars plans needing to be redone, that's all i could really think of to explain that, other wise I think we would have gotten an answer and construction sooner.

 

[ULPO46]

Taking that as a given Why in the heck then is TWDC closing attractions left right and center at DHS and charging full price for a much diminished experience. Budgets and 114 per share stock notwithstanding this kind of stuff is usually only seen at companies in deep financial trouble.

Last years closing 5 major attractions, This year we are on track for what 3 majors and 2-3 minor attractions and still nothing but more closures... And now we hear that the budget cutting is in full swing at the supposed cash cow ESPN. Makes one wonder if the the next step at WDW is the bankruptcy auction of the 'Assets Of The Walt Disney Company' because the 'Going out of Business' vibe at WDW is unmistakable.

I have to agree with you but its not just at the Parks and Resort Division. Something big is happening here in Burbank and they wont tell any of us lower corporate officers. People around me are getting fired divisions being rebranded or laid off. Something is happening and no one is saying anything. Its not rumors and its not being reported by the LA times or anybody really. It makes me disillusioned that i work for such greedy people. Disney has assets of over 100 billion U.S. dollars yet cost cuts are going off the roof and the spreadsheets don't add up. Personally i feel someone or something is planning a buyout or launch of a big project.

 

[englanddg]

I have to agree with you but its not just at the Parks and Resort Division. Something big is happening here in Burbank and they wont tell any of us lower corporate officers. People around me are getting fired divisions being rebranded or laid off. Something is happening and no one is saying anything. Its not rumors and its not being reported by the LA times or anybody really. It makes me disillusioned that i work for such greedy people. Disney has assets of over 100 billion U.S. dollars yet cost cuts are going off the roof and the spreadsheets don't add up. Personally i feel someone or something is planning a buyout or launch of a big project.

The scale of Disney profits really limits who has the leverage to "buy them out". This isn't the early 80s. They are financially quite strong. And, I don't see them selling off their theme park divisions anytime soon.

So, that leaves the latter.

That said, a bit of fat always needs to be trimmed, and perhaps that is what you are seeing. Shaking up an organization is not always a bad thing, and as a "low level corporate officer", you should realize that (as well as realize what the term corporate officer means).

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Someones gotta pay for Bob's bonuses and stock options.

Nope, no one does really. That's the beauty of stock options. Bob only makes money off of them of the stock goes up, i.e. if he does a good job.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

means less repetitive customers and more once in a lifetime visitor.
aka people saving more than a year to get there.

and you know what that means? less addicted individuals and less franchise locked clients.

That's just speculation. The data doesn't support it. And DVC is a built-in insurance policy against that very risk.

 

[Captain Neo]

Given the amount allocated to Epcot I'd like to think Energy could get an overhaul and Imagination could be great again and make better use of the building. Even Wonders could get some love; with proper allocation of funds and budgeting - and reigning in what WDI charges - all 3 pavilions could shine again. It shouldn't cost a fortune since all 3 are already standing and ready.

Assuming what I'm told that RoE isn't changing anytime soon, the remaining amount could go to Innoventions and the long delayed central spine project. Even Imp de France
could get new footage from what's left over.

All assuming runaway budgets are finally curtailed. The amount available to the park isn't insignificant to say Comcast - for example - but TWDC need to relearn how to spend money wisely.

I have a ton of problems with modern Epcot Center. But hands down the Imagination, Energy, and Wonders pavilions are my biggest issues.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I have a ton of problems with modern Epcot Center.

Well there's no such place, and hasn't been for two decades. So...

 

[Captain Neo]

Yep.
In excess of $3b for the resort as a whole. The vast majority for DHS, a bit for EPCOT and MK.

I'm glad somebody else put it out there first...

When you say a bit for Epcot and MK will that money go towards new rides/attractions like for example could we see changes to Tomorrowland like the removal of Stitch or a couple pavilions at Epcot get completely redone?

 

[DisneyCane]

Someones gotta pay for Bob's bonuses and stock options.

Nope, no one does really. That's the beauty of stock options. Bob only makes money off of them of the stock goes up, i.e. if he does a good job.

They are paid for. The options allow him (or anybody that is given them) to purchase shares at a specified price. The idea is that when the option is available for execution, the price will be higher than the "strike price."

Regardless, the company must actually sell those shares to the person executing the options. It has to come from shares the company already holds of itself or shares they will purchase on the market. Even if they purchase the shares at a good price, there is still a cost. I suppose they could do it "for free" by issuing new shares but that would dilute the value of the outstanding shares.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

They are paid for. The options allow him (or anybody that is given them) to purchase shares at a specified price. The idea is that when the option is available for execution, the price will be higher than the "strike price."

Regardless, the company must actually sell those shares to the person executing the options. It has to come from shares the company already holds of itself or shares they will purchase on the market. Even if they purchase the shares at a good price, there is still a cost. I suppose they could do it "for free" by issuing new shares but that would dilute the value of the outstanding shares.

I know how stock options work. My point is that it's not a cash outlay and the folks "paying for it" are not the customers but the shareholders.