News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

[JoeCamel]

Honestly, if Iger planned a whole suite of moves to intentionally tank the company under his anointed successor so that the company would beg him to come back and then that is exactly what happened, well, I'm glad such a master strategist is at the helm of Disney!

Elon level right there, only cost him ? 640k x $160 vs 640K x $85 = ........ Good thing he sold those 400K shares before the vid got bad.
Leaves Mike I as the top individual stockholder, I wonder how he is feeling?

 

[Tha Realest]

…and the staggs hit happened before I even could predict it.

Did something just drop?

 

[el_super]

He was absolutely 100% an empty suit who was used as a tool by Roy to settle his vendetta against Eisner (I made you, mister and I can break you just as easily!!!)

This doesn't seem accurate. Iger was President of ABC before it was bought by Disney and under any Eisner influence. Outside Disney Iger was pretty successful in his own right. He was made President of Disney in 2000, long before Roy started to have a conscience, and was from then on, on the short list to replace Eisner.

It may have been convenient and easy to make Iger the CEO when it finally came down to "anyone but Eisner," but it's not as if Iger wasn't talented and ready for the role either.

 

[el_super]

No! No he was not! Staggs was also a part of the worst of Eisner’s later years.

You all need to stop falling into this trap of white hats versus black hats. Heroes versus villains. It's not how the real world works.

Just because Staggs or McCarthy or anyone else really worked with Eisner, or Iger or [insert other name from the capricious list of Disney Corporate villains] doesn't mean that they don't have the capacity to make the right decisions in the right set of circumstances.

 

[_caleb]

You keep saying there are other explanations but refuse to give them. If there are all of these other explanations, then actually state them.

But I’m not speculating here.

No, it was not. And being extended doesn’t make the difference you are trying to claim. It’s a contract. It’s not some weird nebulous thing that does not really count.

An extension to an existing contract is, by definition, different than a new contract.

Yes, Iger kept saying that and yet kept choosing to stay multiple times, at times for several years. He could have chosen a success at any time. He could have told the Board it’s their problem to figure out.

Yes, he could have done these things.

He was not compelled to extend. Figuring out a successor was/is his job and he spent years without producing results.

I imagine this was part of this job, but I have not read his contract. Reports are that this is meant to be a priority of his now that he's back.

 

[Tha Realest]

You all need to stop falling into this trap of white hats versus black hats. Heroes versus villains. It's not how the real world works.

Just because Staggs or McCarthy or anyone else really worked with Eisner, or Iger or [insert other name from the capricious list of Disney Corporate villains] doesn't mean that they don't have the capacity to make the right decisions in the right set of circumstances.

My favorite is the reluctant resister fanfic that Josh D'Amaro was just taking orders under Chapek, and that he reluctantly went along with it. It's been a month - why haven't any of those things taken away returned, and why haven't the "unpopular" things that Daddy Josh hated gone away?

 

[_caleb]

…only your mirror can tell you.

No, you keep saying this about me. I'm not.

It seems odd for anyone in light of about 5 years of recent events to not think there were some fairly obvious shenanigans going on with Iger here…

But it goes back to my question up thread: do you believe Disney is required to tell you the truth?

I answered this.

This comes up all the time on a variety of threads with many people. Believing that a public company is under some threat of seizure if they massage their way around the truth…

I don't think this. See my answer above.

My question is: do you think that taking what they say without consideration of motive is working with the bobs?

Your "consideration of motive" is fine, but it is speculation. When you (repeatedly) state it as fact, it gets tiresome–especially when it encourages others ªwho have even less insight than you!) to dream up even more conspiracy theories. This isn't Facebook.

 

[Br0ckford]

 

[_caleb]

My favorite is the reluctant resister fanfic that Josh D'Amaro was just taking orders under Chapek, and that he reluctantly went along with it. It's been a month - why haven't any of those things taken away returned, and why haven't the "unpopular" things that Daddy Josh hated gone away?

Can you not imagine a single possible reason Iger didn't immediately undo every Chapek-scapegoated policy within his first month back in the office?

 

[lazyboy97o]

But I’m not speculating here.

What bull.

An extension to an existing contract is, by definition, different than a new contract.

It’s still a contract. Just because it’s an extension does not change that they were for set terms. You’re trying to parse out something that doesn’t exist because you take issue with conclusions being drawn.

I imagine this was part of this job, but I have not read his contract. Reports are that this is meant to be a priority of his now that he's back.

It was publicly discussed. It was not a secret. He said it. The Board said it. It wouldn’t be in his contract, just like his contract doesn’t spell out the rest of his day-to-day job.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No, you keep saying this about me. I'm not.

I answered this.

I don't think this. See my answer above.

Your "consideration of motive" is fine, but it is speculation. When you (repeatedly) state it as fact, it gets tiresome–especially when it encourages others ªwho have even less insight than you!) to dream up even more conspiracy theories. This isn't Facebook.

We don’t have to convince each other…or justify ourselves. Disagreement is necessary to a good discussion. I don’t take anything personally here…not should you because generally I agree with you most of the time

 

[_caleb]

We don’t have to convince each other…or justify ourselves. Disagreement is necessary to a good discussion. I don’t take anything personally here…not should you because generally I agree with you most of the time

I'm not taking it personally! I'm glad you don't. It's all in fun.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm not taking it personally! I'm glad you don't. It's all in fun.

And just to be clear…I’m not accusing you of dusting…not at all.

I just disagree on how trustworthy anyone named “Bob”…or their henchman…can be here?

It’s about 0%

 

[Lilofan]

You all need to stop falling into this trap of white hats versus black hats. Heroes versus villains. It's not how the real world works.

Just because Staggs or McCarthy or anyone else really worked with Eisner, or Iger or [insert other name from the capricious list of Disney Corporate villains] doesn't mean that they don't have the capacity to make the right decisions in the right set of circumstances.

Working for an exec it’s my way or the highway. At least that’s my experience and I was a team player .

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Working for an exec it’s my way or the highway. At least that’s my experience and I was a team player .

That’s the way it is/was at Disney…

Think that has died down in 20 years?

…I do not.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

My favorite is the reluctant resister fanfic that Josh D'Amaro was just taking orders under Chapek, and that he reluctantly went along with it. It's been a month - why haven't any of those things taken away returned, and why haven't the "unpopular" things that Daddy Josh hated gone away?

It’s a big company… they need committees, panels, fact finding tours, cost analysis, etc first. Partially joking but it’s also partially true.

My biggest hope is improved service and maintenance and that will probably take a few months to be visible. Parts will need to be ordered, more staff will need to be hired and trained, I’m keeping my expectations low but I’ll give Josh a few months before I start to worry.

The parks are still cash cows so my guess is they’re not getting much attention from anyone at the top, it’s Josh’s time to shine or fail though.

 

[Tha Realest]

Can you not imagine a single possible reason Iger didn't immediately undo every Chapek-scapegoated policy within his first month back in the office?

I can imagine a bevy of reasons - foremost is that they were initiated by Iger, and carried out by people like Chapek and D'Amaro. That is why I don't think those things are going anywhere - and why the narrative that Daddy Josh was the "good guy" begrudgingly carrying out orders was silly.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

At some point you have to start blaming the BoD and ultimately the shareholders.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It’s a big company… they need committees, panels, fact finding tours, cost analysis, etc first. Partially joking but it’s also partially true.

My biggest hope is improved service and maintenance and that will probably take a few months to be visible. Parts will need to be ordered, more staff will need to be hired and trained, I’m keeping my expectations low but I’ll give Josh a few months before I start to worry.

The parks are still cash cows so my guess is they’re not getting much attention from anyone at the top, it’s Josh’s time to shine or fail though.

See I think you are far less likely to get this because of the “cash cow”…they are looking to extract more off them based on economics…

And the customers (always to blame) have accepted it.

Sadly…the only way to get more “quality” is to have bookings go down, cancellations increase, and tie it back to the quality decline.
The most - and only - powerful weapon the Disney customer has is to NOT GO

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

At some point you have to start blaming the BoD and ultimately the shareholders.

I got…

1. Customers
2. Iger
3. BOD
4. Investment Funds
5. Antonin Scalia
6. Chapek


…in no particular order