$100 million being spent this year on MK

[PeterAlt]

Mmmmm.....agreed with the earlier posts about the rehabs and money now being spent is proof that it was needed for many years and that this in no way rehabilitates Eisner's image. I mean really, NOW he decides to spend money on the parks? NOW he realizes that the parks have been the main cash engines for the company propping up all their other failed enterprises? NOW he realizes that the short term cash you spend on maintenance and upkeep will prevent major overhauls and accidents in the future? It seems Uncle Mike has seen the light. A light switched on by 43% of the shareholders who voted against him.

Agreed, but don't forget that it was Eisner that oversaw the build-out of Disney's most detailed park (Euro Disney), and (to be fair) the least detailed park right next door (Disney Studios Paris). I'm upset that he has let the parks deteriate to this point, as well, but it is a far cry to how bad the management before him let things get even worse at the MK by not spending a dime during the 80's on the MK. And at least he was man enough to realize this mistake and make the executive orders to reverse it.

Despite all of Eisner's shortcomings, he is still much better than Card Walker, who in the early 70's cancelled the greatest Disney ride that could have been, Western River Expedition, from getting built at the MK. Walker also rushed and underfunded WDW's PotC, which (IMHO) is a worser crime than anything Eisner has been accused of.

 

[garyhoov]

Does anyone have any info. on what they spend in an average year? I'm sure this is more than they usually spend, but I'm curious about how different it is. Would rouitine maintenance/operating expenses be included in this value or is it purely from an "improvement" budget?

Thanks for any info anyone can offer!

 

[PeterAlt]

Does anyone have any info. on what they spend in an average year? I'm sure this is more than they usually spend, but I'm curious about how different it is. Would rouitine maintenance/operating expenses be included in this value or is it purely from an "improvement" budget?

Thanks for any info anyone can offer!

I don't have exact numbers, but capital spending has been steady since Splash Mountain began construction, then it dipped several years ago and shot up really high this year.

 

[DarkMeasures]

What was the biggest component? Investigation into technology?

Everest's projected price tag is over 100 million dollars and that is no new technology. But I wouldn't know the reasons for both attractions being 100 million plus. Disney just knows how to spend money.

 

[peter11435]

Everest's projected price tag is over 100 million dollars and that is no new technology. But I wouldn't know the reasons for both attractions being 100 million plus. Disney just knows how to spend money.

Yes, Everest's projected cost is about 120 million. Even though there is not as much new technology as M:S, Everest will be considerbly larger in scope and scale, I mean look there building a 200 foot mountain.

 

[Tim G]

What was the biggest component? Investigation into technology?

R&D

 

[PhotoDave219]

Sounds great to me. From my point of view everything is getting better, and lots of stuff that got pushed back is being caught up on. Everythings being repainted and lots of things seem to be getting repaired. I have no complaints....

($107 million into research? *amused chuckle*)

 

[garyhoov]

Sounds great to me. From my point of view everything is getting better, and lots of stuff that got pushed back is being caught up on. Everythings being repainted and lots of things seem to be getting repaired. I have no complaints....

($107 million into research? *amused chuckle*)

That's great to hear! Management has been so quiet on the subject of maintenance/cleanliness, that I was beginning to worry that someone, somewhere had just decided it wasn't worth the effort. Good to hear they're getting back on track.

 

[Disneyland1970]

I know, I read it. But this also means that it wasn't Eisner who gave the order to have that bit removed, since he didn't even know about it. So, it looks like other people have been behind the destruction of the park, and Eisner has been ignorant of it, which is both good and bad. Good because EIsner has no interest in destroying the parks; bad because Eisner should have taken an interest in the parks to make sure things like this doesn't happen.

I just feel that the only reason for the recent rehabs is because of the bad press of late. I'm not asking Eisner to know how often the toilet paper is checked in stall number three at the Adventureland Mens bathroom, but for the salary he takes home, and for the amount of time he has spent with the company, some of this park information should have stuck,somewhere???
I am a firm believer in lead by example management. It shows how much or little interest Eisner really takes in the company. Mike also hired all those people you claim were the destructive force to the parks, which in most or the business world, would ultimately fall back on him! I understand your statements, but have a hard time giving him credit for anything of late. He needs to APOLOGIZE for his actions! I bet we see the Skyway return before that happens.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Disney also spent $100 million on Mission Space.

I've heard estimates as high as $140 million for Mission Space! :hammer:

 

[AEfx]

I've heard estimates as high as $140 million for Mission Space! :hammer:

I have heard that figure as well, but I believe it also included promotion (TV ads, and the like).

AEfx

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

He needs to APOLOGIZE for his actions! I bet we see the Skyway return before that happens.

Haha! So true! :lol: I'm with you on your statment of bad press... Isn't anyone wondering why all this is happening at a time his job is on the line, Roy is holding a campaign against him and half of Wall Street see only bad news in long term growth?

What a coinsidence...

 

[Tim G]

($107 million into research? *amused chuckle*)

Dave, you don't read what's been written...
The BIGGEST part was spend on R&D...

 

[KevinPage]

SaveDisney was critical of Jay Raluso before he took over Pressler's job and stated he was a "penny pincher". So I'm not sure how "pysched" Jay is about spending $$$.

Granted I'm only going off what they said and have no idea if he is behind all the work being done or he basically had no choice and is just going along with it. Being the top dog I guess you'll have to get some credit as well as the blame (kinda like a manager/coach).

Most of this stuff was already planned or put into motion before Raluso took his new post. The question is what he does for the future regarding NEW attractions.

 

[AndyP]

$107 and some change...

Thanks!

 

[PeterAlt]

SaveDisney was critical of Jay Raluso before he took over Pressler's job and stated he was a "penny pincher". So I'm not sure how "pysched" Jay is about spending $$$.

Granted I'm only going off what they said and have no idea if he is behind all the work being done or he basically had no choice and is just going along with it. Being the top dog I guess you'll have to get some credit as well as the blame (kinda like a manager/coach).

Most of this stuff was already planned or put into motion before Raluso took his new post. The question is what he does for the future regarding NEW attractions.

Well, it depends how you define penny pinchers. There are two types. One piches pennies to reduce spending (such was the case for Paul Pressler). The other pinches pennies to get more out of it (which I think is the case for Raluso. When given a budget, instead of asking for more, Pressler would actually say "that's too much.. if we cut this this and this, would you please give us a budget cut for [X amount]."

The other type of penny pincher, which I think Rasulo is, when presented a budget would say somethink like this "well, previous cost estimates of X millions of dollars for projects were wrong... our new estimates show the work could be done for a mere fraction, for a mere INCREASE in our budget."

Rasulo has asked for such increases in spending and has received them. While at Euro Disney, Rasulo was against spending on E-ticket attractions. This could be why Roy Disney doens't like him. But when Space Mountain proved that E-tickets bring in the crowds, I don't believe Rasulo is so much agianst spending to build E-tickets any more.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Paris presented a variety of other problems for Rasulo related to money that kind of prevented big spending--it wasn't particularly his fault. I don't see how we could say anything other than "Rasulo is fine with big spending". The hundreds of millions of dollars in refurbishments going into both domestic resorts were all approved after Pressler left, and their sole purpose is to make the parks look nice again, not to immediately draw in crowds like a big name E-Ticket. Meanwhile, there are expensive E-Tickets in the works, to boot. While all of the present E-Tickets were certainly talked about when Pressler was in power, I'm pretty sure Rasulo gave the final go ahead on them. Saving money on projects isn't a bad thing. They are spending a lot of money--I would make it go as far as possible, too.