BREAKING NEWS Eisner Is Out!!!

[MKCustodial]

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

And many of those 13% couldn't vote because Disney somehow managed to not send everyone their ballots. Weird, huh? So we really can't know where those 13% were going.

Now Jim Hill has on yesterday's article an interesting non-official list of people that supposedly Roy and Stanley are considering for Eisner's position. Personally, I like Katzenberg, cause he's been part of Disney so he knows how stuff is supposed to work.

 

[JBSLJames]

Re: hmm

Originally posted by civileng68
If I were Eisner's wife, I think i'd be looking and seeing if there's any pretty women on the board because it sure sounds like something's fishy here. Maybe someone got tired at work and some board member supplied the bed.

Wow. That's a pretty good insinuation. Why didn't you say that there may be a pretty man on the board:lookaroun

 

[JBSLJames]

Originally posted by General Grizz
I would not approve of a board that would continue to reject Roy Disney and Stan Gold's positions on different levels. This is the only way from here on out they'll be able to get full consumer confidence.

Just a question Grizz. . . Are you on Roy and Stan's payroll?

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by JBSLJames
Just a question Grizz. . . Are you on Roy and Stan's payroll?

Just a question, James... Are you on Eisner's payroll?

Maybe you're getting a spare parachute if he manages to stay till the end of his contract?



I've seen you badmouth Roy a lot. I'd like to hear your arguments on why Mike and his suits are such great guys.

 

[JBSLJames]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
Just a question, James... Are you on Eisner's payroll?

Maybe you're getting a spare parachute if he manages to stay till the end of his contract?



I've seen you badmouth Roy a lot. I'd like to hear your arguments on why Mike and his suits are such great guys.

First, I'll go by Judd, thank you very much.

Second, I am not on Eisner's payroll (but would like to get a piece of his parachute if you know what I mean.

Third, I do not think Eisner and co are great guys. I am just trying to provide a little balance to the Roy is God preaching going on here. Eisner is the head of a board that, financially, has underperformed over the recent years. He takes responsibility for that. Based on that, yes he probably should be gone. But Roy and Stan are not the answer. I have read (here and elsewhere) that Walt and Roy Sr. were not 'taken' with junior skills. Incompetant comes to mind. Does Disney need a change . . . I don't really know. The numbers for the 1st quarter look good. Do you pull a quarterback when he may be driving for a touchdown or do you just assume he will throw an interception and yank him anyway. If you do yank him, make sure your back-up is capable.

Fourth, Just trying to lighten things up a bit. Point out harsh comments and have fun. You know what I mean?

 

[Shaman]

Alright everyone, lets be civil here...

First we all know that Eisner together with Frank Wells did great things for the company...thats a fact....

However, Eisner for whatever reason (money I suppose) didn't step down a long time ago...and well now with not Wells and Eisner running things....well I would say the company has lost focus...

Do I hate Eisner...no...I feel sorry for the guy....but do I hate what the company has become....yes...and I think that the blame not only lies on Eisner...but on the board aswell, for allowing and in many cases making the bad decisions...

Bottom line is CHANGE is needed NOW...before things get worse...

Eisner no longer chairman...good...a step in the right direction. Change will not happen fast, in fact I would probably look for those who had 20%+ vote of not confidence slowly resign and replaced within the next year...I don't doubt that a clear replacement for Eisner will soon emmerge and paraded all over the news and the papers...for the sake of making sure the Disney stock doesn't take a plunge...

My biggest worry is Comcast, and others like Comcast; for if the stock value keeps decreasing...these corporations make more hostile moves to takeover the Walt Disney Company...

Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, are not perfect individuals, neither is Eisner...the fact is I trust the vision of a man named Disney...for a company name the walt DISNEY company...its not blind faith, its trusting a man who has more to lose than money.

 

[wdwmagic]

Originally posted by JBSLJames
But Roy and Stan are not the answer. I have read (here and elsewhere) that Walt and Roy Sr. were not 'taken' with junior skills. Incompetant comes to mind.

They may not be the answer for managing Disney, and they say themselves they have no desire to do so. BUT they are the answer for being the only with guts and passion to do anything about the current state of the company, and to strive to return Disney to where it was, and should be.

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by JBSLJames
First, I'll go by Judd, thank you very much.

Second, I am not on Eisner's payroll (but would like to get a piece of his parachute if you know what I mean.

Third, I do not think Eisner and co are great guys. I am just trying to provide a little balance to the Roy is God preaching going on here. Eisner is the head of a board that, financially, has underperformed over the recent years. He takes responsibility for that. Based on that, yes he probably should be gone. But Roy and Stan are not the answer. I have read (here and elsewhere) that Walt and Roy Sr. were not 'taken' with junior skills. Incompetant comes to mind. Does Disney need a change . . . I don't really know. The numbers for the 1st quarter look good. Do you pull a quarterback when he may be driving for a touchdown or do you just assume he will throw an interception and yank him anyway. If you do yank him, make sure your back-up is capable.

Fourth, Just trying to lighten things up a bit. Point out harsh comments and have fun. You know what I mean?

Ok, glad we could straighten things out. It's always nice to discuss topics when we clearly understand both sides of an argument (and sorry about the James, went by the avatar).

And don't worry, Oz. I don't think neither of us stepped over any lines.
Right, Judd?

As for your comments, Oz, I totally agree. It's not a point of not praising Eisner for what he did. But there's no denying he did all he did because he had Frank Wells with him.

I'd have to be real naive to not realize the suits are only interest in what Wall Street thinks of them. But I seriously don't think Disney can stay on the track it is now without upsetting its general audience, and not just us Disney faithfull. Or do you think the general public hasn't noticed it's a bad idea to go for Toy Story 3 or Monsters Inc. 2 without Pixar? Or that the parks are in need of SERIOUS attention? Or that the Disney Stores have lost their touch? Or that pulling the plug on traditional animation goes against everything Disney has always meant?

As for Roy and Stanley, I suppose it's the same situation as 20 years ago. Roy knows he can't pilot the ship, and he's said so in the past. 20 years ago, he got Mike and Frank to do it for him, and it worked wonders. I'm confident he can do it again. The man grew up with Walt. He MUST know what his uncle would like to do with the present situation.

Bottom line, it's all about Disney name vs. Disney brand. Which one do you think is the right one?

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by wdwmagic
They may not be the answer for managing Disney, and they say themselves they have no desire to do so. BUT they are the answer for being the only with guts and passion to do anything about the current state of the company, and to strive to return Disney to where it was, and should be.

And yeah, what he said.

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
Ok, glad we could straighten things out. It's always nice to discuss topics when we clearly understand both sides of an argument (and sorry about the James, went by the avatar).

And don't worry, Oz. I don't think neither of us stepped over any lines.
Right, Judd?

Good I was beginning to worry...:wave:

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Guys...guys...guys...

You can't compare the two...it's like comparing apples and oranges...er...mice :lookaroun

(ok, back to the debate :lol: )

 

[luvorlando]

Originally posted by 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.

I think some people are confused. The 57%, 44%, 43%, and 13% numbers that keep getting tossed around are the percentages of SHARES that were voted/not voted, not actual numbers of people who own shares (shareholders) and voted/didn't vote.

How much of that 57% (or really 44%) were shares that are owned by Michael Eisner himself?

 

[HauntedPirate]

Originally posted by objr
<snip>

Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, are not perfect individuals, neither is Eisner...the fact is I trust the vision of a man named Disney...for a company name the walt DISNEY company...its not blind faith, its trusting a man who has more to lose than money. [/B]

That was perfectly stated. With this campaign to remove Eisner, and having the Disney name, Roy does have a *lot* more to lose than money. I don't think money has driven this one bit - Roy has over 17 million shares, I think he could live quite well off of the dividends, thank you very much. It's about the ideas the company was founded on, the ideals that it grew with, and the expectations that millions of people grew up with. I think current management has is completely out of touch with what the company is supposed to be about, and that's family-oriented entertainment. I'm sorry, but how is "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" family-oriented?!?!?!?! :brick:

 

[Pat X]

For those who wanted Eisner out, its time to face reality that its not going to happen immediately.

While the anti-eisner campaign was successful, for the board to dump him now wouldn't be a wise thing to do. First, the company HAS been weakened by all of this and Comcast is still out there trying to scoop up Disney. I know they haven't raised their bid, but they are still trying to acquire the company...not merge, but acquire. Do not be fooled by the "merger" language. They still maintain that Disney shareholders will only own 42% of the new company.

Next, since the board has backed Eisner, it would look horrible if they simply cast him aside so quickly. To try to save some face, they may try to take some time before they ask him to leave.

So first, they take away his chairman role as a short-term solution. In the meantime, they can look for a friendly replacement (anti-Comcast) for CEO while working out a plan to allow Eisner to leave on his own terms.

Those are my thoughts....I could be totally wrong though! :hammer:

 

[Disney2002]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
And many of those 13% couldn't vote because Disney somehow managed to not send everyone their ballots. Weird, huh? So we really can't know where those 13% were going.

oh... give me a break:brick:

 

[TURKEY]

Wouldn't Eisner's parachute cost more if he was booted out of office rather than let his contract expire?

How many shares do the members of the board control? It's safe to say that all of them voted YES for the entire board.

 

[Pat X]

Originally posted by turkey leg boy
Wouldn't Eisner's parachute cost more if he was booted out of office rather than let his contract expire?

YES....I believe his "golden parachute" is over 100 million.

 

[JBSLJames]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
And don't worry, Oz. I don't think neither of us stepped over any lines.
Right, Judd?

Bottom line, it's all about Disney name vs. Disney brand. Which one do you think is the right one?

Everything is good. James is my last name. Avatar is the first initials, in alphabetic order, of my family followed by the last name.

Judd will do just fine.

As far as the Parks degradation, I haven't been witness to that. I know that my family is looking forward to going later this year and our hopes are fairly high for a 'magical' time. I have been witness to the decline in everyday maintenance and appearance at Kings Island since Paramount took over.

Name vs. Brand. To us, the patrons/fans of Disney it is a name synonimous(sp) with excellence. The name is the Magic. For corporate America, it is quickly becoming a Brand. The two are different in meaning but that line is thin. By Branding everything Disney that they can, they assume it will be gobbled up by those of us that associate excellence with the name.

In a similar note, Nike could put out a crappy product and people will by it for the name.

 

[Pat X]

Here is an interesting article from the Philly Inquirer. I do want to highlight the following statement from the article:

Howard Alter, chairman of Alter Asset Management in Princeton, said Comcast's bid would have a greater chance of success with Eisner gone than with him at the helm.

Without Eisner, there would be a "vacuum of leadership at the top of the company," said Alter, whose firm holds more than 30,000 Disney shares. "That would make Disney more vulnerable to a takeover from Comcast."




http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/8099820.htm

 

[Since1976]

I have to tell you, after a less than impressive honeymoon trip to WDW in 2002, this event feels a lot like wish fulfillment.

I can now tell my wife, who had never been to WDW before our trip, that things at WDW will soon return to the glory I remembered as a child...