BREAKING NEWS Eisner Is Out!!!

[daksimba]

Originally posted by Disney2002
And if you go back 20 years, disney has gone up 2000% and Apple only about 300%.

I intentionally choose 2 years since that is the time frame over which this issue has really heated up.

Well, considering that Apple was still an upstart, and Disney was more than established, I call that a pretty good start for Apple.

At the current trends, where would Apple be at it's 75th? Disney would be under, and Apple would still be kicking.

And the issue has been around a LOT longer than two years. It's been around ever since 1996 when attendance starting dropping, and the stock right along with it.

 

[cherrynegra]

Originally posted by daksimba
See, the problem with people like you though is stuff like this:

look at the last two years.


look how the stock did last year.

Disney made x money the last couple of years.




Eisner has been here Much longer than two years. And for anybody with stock for at least 5 years has noticed that they haven't made a single penny. We have still LOST money.

I purchased stock in the employee purchase program back when it was over $40 a share. What is it worth now? $26.

I'm still out $14 a share. Take that into 30-50 shares, you see my point. Eisner and Co. has cost me $420-$700 the last 5 years.



Hell, at one point in the last 5 years, the stock was only worth a 1/3 of its previous value.

I agree daksimba. There was a time when the stock was worth something like $14 or $15 a share. And if you're going to compare how a company has done over x number of years, let's look at Disney's. According to the recent first quarter post, we're now at levels seen eight years ago. That's not doing well or moving up no matter how well Disney did this past quarter.

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by Disney2002
Which is why I posted the 20 year returns which would be... well... exactly the tenure of Eisner.

And what has Eisner done in the last 5-6 years? He has let the stock slip almost 66%, while his salary and bonuses keep rising.

At what point is this a good investment?

 

[Disney2002]

Originally posted by darthdarrel
ok so what your basically saying is that The ole mighty dollar is what you care about, more then quality of the theme parks and movies, well as was stated people will only buy crap for so long then it will bottom out, park attendance will fall drastically when they see nothing new coming into the parks and the quality of the parks go down and children will loose interest with Disney when no animated movies are made.

I'm saying when you are the board of a company, that is, by law, your interest. The board must serve the interest of shareholder returns. I'm sorry if people don't understand the perspective I'm arguing from... it's purely that of business management. Personally, I want animation back and the best parks possible.

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by Disney2002
I'm saying when you are the board of a company, that is, by law, your interest. The board must serve the interest of shareholder returns. I'm sorry if people don't understand the perspective I'm arguing from... it's purely that of business management. Personally, I want animation back and the best parks possible.

That is your only intrest if you are the on the board of TD Waterhouse or Microsoft,


But Disney has always been more than that.


From his own words: (Thanks Savedisney.com )

From the Great One himself.....


"I know different ways of looking at things. I have my stockholders, and I feel a very keen responsibility to the shareholders, but I feel that the main responsibility I have to them is to have the stock appreciate. And you only have it appreciate by reinvesting as much as you can back in the business. And that’s what we’ve done…and that has been my philosophy on running the business."

--Walt Disney

Disney reinvested that money by producing the best product he could. He made the best movies possible. He made the best rides possible. He had training so that the employees would be the best, and give the best experience.

Now what? All they look at is what they can build cheap, and is popular to the moment.


Eisner seems more into reinvesting into his own pocket, and buying worthless products. FoxFamily anyone?

 

[cherrynegra]

Originally posted by Disney2002
I'm saying when you are the board of a company, that is, by law, your interest. The board must serve the interest of shareholder returns. I'm sorry if people don't understand the perspective I'm arguing from... it's purely that of business management. Personally, I want animation back and the best parks possible.

I certainly can't speak for others, but I think that it would be in the best interest of the shareholders to have Eisner step down not only because of his past performance, but now he is such a figure and symbol of shareholder discontent. How can you have someone represent the company publicly knowing that he received such a vote of no confidence, and whose mere presence on the Board would permeate every decision with suspicion and contempt? How can they expect to proceed forward with that kind of palpable vitriol present not only for Eisner, but eventually for the entire Board?

 

[darthdarrel]

Originally posted by Disney2002
I'm saying when you are the board of a company, that is, by law, your interest. The board must serve the interest of shareholder returns. I'm sorry if people don't understand the perspective I'm arguing from... it's purely that of business management. Personally, I want animation back and the best parks possible.

So what is the board going to do when things bottom out?

And to reiterate what has allready been said, what the heck was that huge bonus given to Eisner, after they just laid off several thousand CM`s? Seems to me that if your company is failing, spurring lay offs that would tell you that, the person is not doing their job and a bonus is not warranted.

 

[Disney2002]

Originally posted by cherrynegra
I certainly can't speak for others, but I think that it would be in the best interest of the shareholders to have Eisner step down not only because of his past performance, but now he is such a figure and symbol of shareholder discontent. How can you have someone represent the company publicly knowing that he received such a vote of no confidence, and whose mere presence on the Board would permeate every decision with suspicion and contempt? How can they expect to proceed forward with that kind of palpable vitriol present not only for Eisner, but eventually for the entire Board?

I can agree with that... that Eisner has become a symbol of discontent. However, I think scapegoat is the better word.

 

[Calamar]

Originally posted by STGRhost
They don't want the company to fail, neccessarily. They want to show a profit. But they way they're doing that right now is not by actually MAKING money (and I think most people realize the old saying "You have to spend money to make money" is at least partly true), but by cutting costs and laying off workers. Sure, at the end of the quarter/year it LOOKS like your ahead, but at what cost? The quality continues to go down, and eventually that'll catch up to them (people will only pay for crap for so long...)

Yes, good arguments. I wanted to add that the current management is aiming for short-term profits not only by neglecting park maintenance, firing employees, and so forth, but I feel we can also blame the long-term plunge in profit on general laziness in the Disney management. For the past decade we've seen 'business-as-usual' in action. The suits are convinced that they have discovered the precise formula for creating profitable, entertaining content. I should mention that I have no experience in the business world, but it's so bloody intuitive that it's necessary to take risks when producing creative works. Business-as-usual will not suffice, but we've seen this in the laughable sequels, the carbon-copy rides -- and Roy Disney provides many more examples on his web site.

"So what?" One might respond. "If it's profitable -- if the dumb consumers buy the lousy sequels for their kids -- why is there a problem? The corporation is profiting, and the shareholders ought to be happy." Roy Disney is concerned about long-term profitability. This constitutes more than an 'emotional appeal' -- the Disney name has the potential for long-term value, and yet it's being sullied, driven into the ground for fleeting short-term gains. The public's perception toward Disney is absolutely essential, but because it's intangible -- because it cannot be quantified and does not fit into the suits' universal "formula" -- it is neglected. At the end of the day (assuming there is no change), if Disney executives treat Disney like just any other company, that's exactly what it will become. It will lose its unique image and the leverage over its competitors that the company currently enjoys.

(Again, feel free to discard my views as pure ramblings, as I don't really know what I'm talking about. )

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by Disney2002
I can agree with that... that Eisner has become a symbol of discontent. However, I think scapegoat is the better word.

Scapegoat? He has been both CEO and Chairman ever since Frank Wells passed away. All decisions are his.

Who the hell would he be the scapegoat for?


A scapegoat would be blaming the drop in attendance on Al Weiss or Lee Cockrel, the heads of WDW, instead of their boss, Eisner.

But Eisner doesn't answer to anybody.

 

[cherrynegra]

Originally posted by Disney2002
I can agree with that... that Eisner has become a symbol of discontent. However, I think scapegoat is the better word.

I politely disagree with the term scapegoat. Figure and symbol remain. He is the last of the remaining dinosaur businessmen who thought he could run the company his way or the the highway. Well, today's vote proves to him and all other CEO's that they answer to those people who put their hard earned dollars with the company and not to themselves.

 

[Disney2002]

Originally posted by daksimba
Scapegoat? He has been both CEO and Chairman ever since Frank Wells passed away. All decisions are his.

Who the hell would he be the scapegoat for?


A scapegoat would be blaming the drop in attendance on Al Weiss or Lee Cockrel, the heads of WDW, instead of their boss, Eisner.

But Eisner doesn't answer to anybody.

I think he is the scapegoat for people who have no conception of how big business actually runs. Everything is laid on Eisner. It drives me crazy, when people have incomplete conceptions of corporate structure.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Eisner is out?!?

Does this mean Gay Days will become an official event now? :lookaroun


























(sorry, the title of the thread was just beggin' for it)

 

[Disney2002]

Re: Eisner is out?!?

Originally posted by Wilt Dasney
Does this mean Gay Days will become an official event now? :lookaroun
(sorry, the title of the thread was just beggin' for it)

:lol:

And with that...

 

[cherrynegra]

Booooooooooooo. Easy pot shot. Funny one though.:lol:

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by Disney2002
I think he is the scapegoat for people who have no conception of how big business actually runs. Everything is laid on Eisner. It drives me crazy, when people have incomplete conceptions of corporate structure.

Let's see. He had the top two positions in the company, is responisble for making the most money he can in the tradition of the company.


The stock fell 66% in the last 6 years and every old-time Disney person comments on how tradtition and the Disney image has gone out the window in that time frame.


At what part is he not responsible? Do you honestly think the man that hold the top two spots and has final say on all decision really didn't have a clue that this was going on?


Wilt Dasney: :sohappy: :sohappy: :lol: :lol: :drevil:

 

[stingrock23]

Eisner had a lot of control of the company, so the consequences lie mainly with him.

I'd like to see a succession plan put in place to have him leave the company at the end of the year. That would give the board time to do enough research to choose a successor. As long as Comcast doesn't raise it's bid, I think Disney is safe from them. A succession plan would put the shareholders more at ease.

 

[he-guy]

Does no one realize that 57% is the majority. Presidential elections usually end with the winner far lower than that. Most people that matter (shareholders) still want this guy in control.

 

[jaylenofan86]

True, but people who didn't vote their shares automaticly goes over to the board to decide how the shares will go. So, the people who voted no for Eisner could have been the majority.

 

[ogryn]

I just read on another board that there was actually a 13% abstention, so it was:
43% against
44% for