Roy & Stanley to sue Disney

askmike1 · May 9, 2005

Thrawn said:
Then I suggest you run on over to google and wikipedia and start researching.

But does this have to do with what I said "The fact that they come from similar pasts mean nothing." You also can't go by wikipedia (which doesn't list a lot in the first place) because it is made by people. I could edit Roy's page if I want to to add "Disgruntled old worker who has nothing else to do." Does that make it a fact? Same with google.

So instead of the SPD that was responsible for greatly expanding the company, he is going to try and do everything himself? You just said that Iger is getting rid of the SPD. That group was responsible for making all the departmental decisions. Now, those decisions will be brought to the board and Iger himself. Less will get done this way.

This is not true. He is going to alot a certain amount of money to each department. Each department will be allowed to do what they wish with it, leading to less business decisions and more creative decisions. Iger does not want to be burdened with all the minor decisions.

1) No one else has made a serious offer to buy their movies.

Although I believe this is the case, Pixar has said they have been approached by many studios.

Eisner knew they had nowhere else to go, and thats why he didn't give in to Steve Jobs outrageous demands.

I agree.

General Grizz · May 9, 2005

Thrawn said:
Edit: Grizz ... just curious as to what you would like to see as a CEO.
Eisner
Iger
Roy approved choice.
Someone else.

I wouldn't like to see Eisner. Iger, if he is the best option. Roy-approved will have to be selected by the shareholders and it would also be good if he or she had a good track record, same going for someone else.

askmike1 · May 9, 2005

How about Evelyn Davis for CEO, she would surely spice the corperate events.

-Michael

prberk · May 9, 2005

You know, maybe this is crazy, but before the lawsuit, I kind of half-way expected Iger to reach out to Roy in a way. I thought this after I saw that he was making noise about restarting the Pixar discussions, and after he fired the strategic planners (which Roy had not liked in the authority that they had developed, either).

I really thought that he might have been coming out trying to mend some fences that Eisner had cut down, and I guess I thought that that might have included Roy.....

mickhyperion · May 9, 2005

disneyplanet said:
Is this all sour grape for not being included in DL 50th launch?...

No offense to you personally in any way, but it is this kind of thinking that is prevalent on the Disney discussion boards and it is childish and immature and typical of the short American attention span. Comments are made like "Oh, I'm TIRED of hearing about Roy Disney" and "Why can't he just go away?" because he is apparently "ruining" their itty bitty little magic.

The entire SaveDisney campaign has never been about petty issues such as being invited to parties or who gets their name read aloud on television the most. It is about fraudulent corporate governance in the hands of overpaid, overly powerful, near dictatorship-like CEO's and Boards of Directors who are out to mine every last penny out of their "brand" and their "product" regardless of the long term ramifications for the brands or the products or even the company itself. SaveDisney is about fighting against the pure greed of this particular corporate entity who are collectively only concerned about making themselves as rich as possible. This problem is widespread in the US and the Disney Co. is merely the leading example of it.

Thrawn · May 9, 2005

askmike1 said:
But does this have to do with what I said "The fact that they come from similar pasts mean nothing." You also can't go by wikipedia (which doesn't list a lot in the first place) because it is made by people. I could edit Roy's page if I want to to add "Disgruntled old worker who has nothing else to do." Does that make it a fact? Same with google.

Wikipedia now includes the entire encyclopedia britannica. Also, on google, stick to WSJ.com or similar sites and you'll get more or less correct info.

This is not true. He is going to alot a certain amount of money to each department. Each department will be allowed to do what they wish with it, leading to less business decisions and more creative decisions. Iger does not want to be burdened with all the minor decisions.

So all the decisions made under Eisner's tenure weren't good? Lets look at the major ones

Disney-MGM Studios
Animal Kingdom
California Adventure
WD Studios Paris
Disney Cruise Line
not to mention the new rides and rehabs at exisiting parks

However, the most important is the huge expansion he single-handedly called for in the resort part of the company. He brought the company from 3 on property Disney owned hotels to 20, plus Swan and Dolphin, and the hotels on Hotel Plaza Blvd. The amount of money those hotels take in is staggering, and TWDC wouldn't be in the place it is without that income.

Although I believe this is the case, Pixar has said they have been approached by many studios.

Agreed, they definetly have been approached. But nothing near the deal Disney left on the table.

speck76 · May 9, 2005

askmike1 said:
Second Sentence: Was it a little rude, yes. But the same things have been said about Michael Eisner on these boards too and nobody complained about people saying that.

-Michael

It is funny how that works.....people are so quick to attack Eisner, and when Iger was announced, worse things were said about him, without even giving him a chance.

One rude comment about "darling Roy" and I am the anti-christ.

askmike1 · May 9, 2005

Thrawn said:
So all the decisions made under Eisner's tenure weren't good?

And yet I did not say that. All I'm saying is that he's handling things differently.

Lets look at the major ones

Disney-MGM Studios
Animal Kingdom
California Adventure
WD Studios Paris
Disney Cruise Line
not to mention the new rides and rehabs at exisiting parks

However, the most important is the huge expansion he single-handedly called for in the resort part of the company. He brought the company from 3 on property Disney owned hotels to 20, plus Swan and Dolphin, and the hotels on Hotel Plaza Blvd. The amount of money those hotels take in is staggering, and TWDC wouldn't be in the place it is without that income.

Believe me, if there is one person on the board that will agree with you, it's me. Michael Eisner saved the company and has done great things from 1984-2005. If it weren't for him, the company as we know it wouldn't be. Iger is doing things different. Does different mean better? No. Does it mean worse? No. It just means different.

-Michael

Thrawn · May 9, 2005

mickhyperion said:
No offense to you personally in any way, but it is this kind of thinking that is prevalent on the Disney discussion boards and it is childish and immature and typical of the short American attention span. Comments are made like "Oh, I'm TIRED of hearing about Roy Disney" and "Why can't he just go away?" because he is apparently "ruining" their itty bitty little magic.

The entire SaveDisney campaign has never been about petty issues such as being invited to parties or who gets their name read aloud on television the most. It is about fraudulent corporate governance in the hands of overpaid, overly powerful, near dictatorship-like CEO's and Boards of Directors who are out to mine every last penny out of their "brand" and their "product" regardless of the long term ramifications for the brands or the products or even the company itself. SaveDisney is about fighting against the pure greed of this particular corporate entity who are collectively only concerned about making themselves as rich as possible. This problem is widespread in the US and the Disney Co. is merely the leading example of it.

You went from bad, to worse, to way over the edge.

First, he just asked a question. From the wording, I'd guess he's younger, so give him a break.

Second, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make yourself rich. When you are a public company, you can make yourself as rich as the stockholders let you. Thats what this is all about.

Third, there are many companies far more corrupt and bad for the economy than TWDC. Walmart is the top of the list, but there are many more.

disneyplanet · May 9, 2005

mickhyperion said:
No offense to you personally in any way, but it is this kind of thinking that is prevalent on the Disney discussion boards and it is childish and immature and typical of the short American attention span. Comments are made like "Oh, I'm TIRED of hearing about Roy Disney" and "Why can't he just go away?" because he is apparently "ruining" their itty bitty little magic.

The entire SaveDisney campaign has never been about petty issues such as being invited to parties or who gets their name read aloud on television the most. It is about fraudulent corporate governance in the hands of overpaid, overly powerful, near dictatorship-like CEO's and Boards of Directors who are out to mine every last penny out of their "brand" and their "product" regardless of the long term ramifications for the brands or the products or even the company itself. SaveDisney is about fighting against the pure greed of this particular corporate entity who are collectively only concerned about making themselves as rich as possible. This problem is widespread in the US and the Disney Co. is merely the leading example of it.

No problem if you read the whole thing I basical said it was not. I just posted a question like devil advacate.

There is so much politics on both sides. That nobody can say what either side really thinks. or what stand behind the base problem. We can only get insight or rumors. Unless some one is on the board or inside save disney.

Some say Roy is spiteful to Mike, the board and anything they stand for.
because he has lost power or feels like they stabed him in the back.

or

Roy see the company dead lock in it own greed like an evil empire.

Yes it is no longed Roys company. does he want it back? it not the same company. Face it. Life the world has changed. He could not run it.

Is Disney acting like Enron, Adelfia cable, or AOL. doctoring books?

Iger should be given a chance and if he proves just to be a mike ver 2. Yes he should be outed. But to say he is no good just because Roy does not approve of him is wrong. Roy is not the board or has Veto power. we can make our votes count at the next proxy.

Yes the Board should be held acountable, but what is the reason behind it all. Has Iger done something wrong? Is there some reason to not have good faith. Yes the Board was slimey in the way they chose him. but dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

BTW I am a bad at typing. no spell check here..

speck76 · May 9, 2005

MiklCraw4d said:
Wow, I wish the rep system were still in place.

Yeah, I disagree with him so I hope he dies.

Could it be that Roy has more than a merely fiscal interest in what happens to the company? He has been the sole member of the Disney family that has really stuck with it through the years, and I think he really wants everything to be right with the company. He's not perfect, and emotion may be playing a role, but I do not doubt his ultimate intentions.

Nice way to twist my words....

Roy has done nothing more than ride on the coat-tails of the company that has his family's name. He is not the creative genius like Walt, he is not a financial guy like Old Roy, he is only an old man, who through nepotism had a pretty easy job and a fantastic paycheck.

If Roy was not a "Disney" would anyone really give a crap about what he had to say?

SirGoofy · May 9, 2005

askmike1 said:
Michael Eisner saved the company and has done great things from 1984-2005. If it weren't for him, the company as we know it wouldn't be.

I wouldn't say he single handedly savbed the company. You can't forget about Mr. Wells, but yeah ME helped a lot.

Speck, you're right, no one would care if Roy wasn't a Disney. But since he is, you have to lend him an ear.

Thrawn · May 9, 2005

askmike1 said:
Believe me, if there is one person on the board that will agree with you, it's me. Michael Eisner saved the company and has done great things from 1984-2005. If it weren't for him, the company as we know it wouldn't be. Iger is doing things different. Does different mean better? No. Does it mean worse? No. It just means different.

-Michael

You're right. Different he is, but I bet it will turn out similar. Hopefully, though, we'll get the great changes of the first 15 years of Eisner's reign, and not the muddled mess of the last 6. It might take 5-10 years to find out just how things are going.

Thrawn · May 9, 2005

SirGoofy said:
I wouldn't say he single handedly savbed the company. You can't forget about Mr. Wells, but yeah ME helped a lot.

Again, I need to say "read Disneywar". Basically Eisner made all the hard, tough choices, and Wells was the one who got everyone to support Eisner's decision. They worked very well that way. Frank Wells really didn't make any decisions himself, just helped the decisions get made.

Woody13 · May 9, 2005

Don't be fooled Disney fans. Roy Disney and Stan Gold put their own interests first. They want the Disney Company. This is just another attempt on their part to gain total control.

Back in the early 1980's, Disney stock went down in value. Roy Disney (after he resigned from the company) and his good buddy Stan Gold attempted to buy the company, but they botched the deal and opened the door for two other takeover attempts by corporate raiders. First, Saul Steinberg bought a huge chunk of Disney and later Irwin Jacobs did the same thing. The Walt Disney Company had to pay these raiders huge amounts of "greenmail" in order to remain intact. Then, Roy Disney and Gold scrambled to correct their mistake. They got the billionaire Bass brothers (Texas) to buy 25% of Disney which "corrected" Roy and Stan's business blunder.

Twenty years later and Roy and Stan are up to their old tricks again. Don't fall victim to these con artists! Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do! Remember Comcast?

Thrawn · May 9, 2005

speck76 said:
Nice way to twist my words....

Roy has done nothing more than ride on the coat-tails of the company that has his family's name. He is not the creative genius like Walt, he is not a financial guy like Old Roy, he is only an old man, who through nepotism had a pretty easy job and a fantastic paycheck.

If Roy was not a "Disney" would anyone really give a crap about what he had to say?

Well, he is a major stockholder, so yes, he would be listened to.

speck76 · May 9, 2005

Nice of you to chime in Woody......unfortunately, most who support Roy do not know business at all.....they think with their hearts, and they are blinded by truth....

It is sad.

speck76 · May 9, 2005

Thrawn said:
Well, he is a major stockholder, so yes, he would be listened to.

He is a large individual stockholder, but nothing compared to the funds and banks.

My point was (besides his stockholdings) for the mark (or lack of) that he himself has left on the company.......why do people care what he has to say?

SirGoofy · May 9, 2005

Thrawn said:
Again, I need to say "read Disneywar". Basically Eisner made all the hard, tough choices, and Wells was the one who got everyone to support Eisner's decision. They worked very well that way. Frank Wells really didn't make any decisions himself, just helped the decisions get made.

Ahh, but he did help.... :lol:

Thrawn · May 9, 2005

speck76 said:
He is a large individual stockholder, but nothing compared to the funds and banks.

My point was (besides his stockholdings) for the mark (or lack of) that he himself has left on the company.......why do people care what he has to say?

Because he's a Disney, you're right in that.
His cause is correct though. He's trying to restore "Walt Disney" to the WDC. Yes, it will benefit him to do so. But who does anything that wouldn't benefit themselves?

Woody, you're a little incorrect on that facts you posted, but close enough, and thats 20 years in the past. The Comcast bid, well, that was probably pushed by Roy, yes.

Roy & Stanley to sue Disney

Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Account Suspended

Well-Known Member

Member

Account Suspended

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Account Suspended

Account Suspended

New Member

Account Suspended

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Account Suspended