BREAKING NEWS Eisner Is Out!!!

[JBSLJames]

Originally posted by tigsmom
This is what Roy is fighting for and for as much as I can do I will support him in this endeavor.

I guess I'm not completely sold that Roy is not using this "angle" to drum up support. I know that if I wanted change in a company or anything really, I would try and pick a position that people could rally around.

Take Pete Rose. No really. Take HIM. Pete has tried to use his performance as a player to gloss over his wrong doings. Those who 'remember' his contributions as a player, blindly sided with Pete. Now that he has 'come clean' his support has dwindled.

Apples to apples . . not quite, but my point is, that both Stan and Roy have talked about a lack of money being made currently within the Disney Group. Money is the driving factor. Not my or your happiness.

Could someone please get me another soapbox, this one is worn out.

 

[MouseRight]

Quote from NY Times article.

"One concern, is that if Mr. Eisner were to resign now with no successor, the company would be vulnerable to takeover attempts; the Comcast Corporation, for instance, made an unsolicited offer three weeks ago. Mr. Eisner, the board has said, still has something to add to the company. And the board wants to make a deliberate decision, not one in haste."

For all of you people who were spewing hate for Eisner and the Board during the meeting yesterday, their is another side to this issue. That is a slow & deliberate succession. While that is going on, this management team now "Get's It" (It doesn't matter how they "Got It" - they now have it) and are taking steps to turn things around. While so many of you were making fun of the meeting yesterday and complaining about everything that the management said, they told us about some real changes taking place, e.g., new Disney (Not Pixar - the way it should be) animated movies over the next 2 years and a new Mickey 3D short, new daring risks in live action, renewed focus on magic,. (They didn't announce this yesterday, but my guess is that they will be replacing ABC's managment soon to turn that around.) You guys were so busy slamming Eisner/Mgm't that you couldn't, and didn't want to, hear the real steps they are taking to turn the ship around.

I have been saying this since Roy quit. A slow deliberate succession is the way to go. Why don't we all give the guy a break. With Comcast and others stalking Disney, now is not the time for drastic changes.

My mother used to tell me - "Be Careful What You Wish For"

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by Disney2002
oh... give me a break:brick:

All you need to do is ask around and you'll see how many shareholders still haven't received their ballot, or received it too late.

Originally posted by MouseRight
While so many of you were making fun of the meeting yesterday and complaining about everything that the management said, they told us about some real changes taking place, e.g., new Disney (Not Pixar - the way it should be) animated movies over the next 2 years and a new Mickey 3D short, new daring risks in live action, renewed focus on magic,. (They didn't announce this yesterday, but my guess is that they will be replacing ABC's managment soon to turn that around.) You guys were so busy slamming Eisner/Mgm't that you couldn't, and didn't want to, hear the real steps they are taking to turn the ship around.

Oh, so that's a brand new idea they just had? They haven't been saying exactly that for the past 10 or so years? Wasn't "renewed focus on magic" the same explanation they gave when they bought ABC or when they started dealing with Pixar?
And hasn't Comcast said they'd also do everything they could to restore the Magic?
All of them will ALWAYS say that because they know that's what we want to hear.
I've been to WDW 5 times, including as a CM, and I've been watching Disney movies and TV since I can remember, and I'm tired of waiting for things to get back the way they were. Eisner has had way too many chances since Wells' passing. And if those 43% ain't enough to tell the board there's something wrong going on, I suppose eventually their dear stock will start feeling those effects soon. I don't know much about business, but even though Disney is Disney, I don't see many companies wanting to make deals with a company that just broke a historic record for most hated CEO, or something to that effect.

 

[JBSLJames]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
All of them will ALWAYS say that because they know that's what we want to hear.

Roy and Stan (not) included:lol: :lookaroun :lol:

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
I don't know much about business, but even though Disney is Disney, I don't see many companies wanting to make deals with a company that just broke a historic record for most hated CEO, or something to that effect.

I undertsand and share your frustration and respect your opinion. However, yesterday's vote will have exactly the opposite effect on whether or not another company wants to take over Disney. The Hyenas are waiting on the sidelines ready to pounce on the wounded lion (Lion King reference was intentional). Disney is wounded (from Eisner's mistakes, from Roy's campaign, and Comcast's offer, etc.) Any # of companies would like to do this deal. Even Roy has said that the Disney Board should talk to Comcast (although he did say that he wants it to remain independent). Although he has been quoted as saying that he will not get involved, Bill Gates can and has business reasons to buy Disney anytime he wants or support Comcast (he owns 7% of Comcast).

On CNBC thsi morning there was a man who has been an advisor to many boards and CEO's. He was recommending what I have - slow succession. He cited examples of other companies who blew it when they picked the wrong CEO.

Slow and steady - steady and slow - is the way to go.

 

[JBSLJames]

Originally posted by tigsmom
Drift:
And Judd....I remember Pete Rose's accomplishments. He was a very good player who gave his all...or did he. I'm sorry, but IMHO as a baseball fan, he does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Anyone who bets against his own team and then plays in that game ....no. He screwed himself.

End of drift.

Continued drift. There has been no proof, none, not even in the Dowd files that say he bet AGAINST the Reds. He did bet on baseball and even the reds while he managed. But the only proof has been that he bet on the Reds to win. I do not see this as ground breaking. He should be in the Hall of Fame as a Player and in the Hall of Shame as a person.

 

[JBSLJames]

That's a little different. The Sox took money to throw the series. I believe only those identified as 'participants' were banned for life. The commisioner at that time, made the new rule regarding gambling. Pete is guilty of breaking the rule, but not in the way the Sox did.

Pete Rose is the best baseball player in the History of the game named Pete Rose. His accomplishments on the field should provide the necessary justification for Hall of Fame status.

Now back to the thread. :wave:

I just heard reported on SeeNBSee, that Roy and Stan have formed a lynch mob and are heading for the Eisner estate after a short stop to pick up Allan Iverson (who also belongs in the Hall)

 

[MKCustodial]

Just in case anyone's interested. JimHillMedia.com has reports up on the shareholders meeting. Very interesting reading, I thought.

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by tigsmom
Just in case anyone is interested...Disney shares are up 22 cents at this hour. :wave:

Sounds good...lets hope they continue going up...and far away from Comcast....

 

[DMC-12]

Great... so nothing has really changed ( I know.., things take time...BUT) ... except you have two evils at the top now.... Sen. George Mitchell will serve as of Chairman of the Board; Michael Eisner will continue as chief executive officer.

Grrrreat Mitchell is no saint either. :brick:

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by DMC-12
Great... so nothing has really changed ( I know.., things take time...BUT) ... except you have two evils at the top now.... Sen. George Mitchell will serve as of Chairman of the Board; Michael Eisner will continue as chief executive officer.

Grrrreat Mitchell is no saint either. :brick:

Don't worry Jer....just do like me:

*grabs earlobes (one with each hand) and calmly exhales, saying the word....wooooooosaaaaah*

It should help...:lookaroun

:wave:

 

[cindy_k]

:hammer: I was watching CNBC this morning to see what the Market Watchers have to say about this... and saw this Priceless comment .

Mark Hanes was showing clips of Eisner's interview on Nightline last night after he was removed from Chairman. Eisner was going on about how the stock holders were really happy with him and the company and they were just fooled by the dissenters and their propoganda.

After the clips were done Mark Hanes had a one word comment which had the whole studio laughing.

"CLUELESS" :lol:

It was rather amusing.

 

[joefox97]

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.

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.

Katzenberg's an interesting guy -- but he's been described as a terrier by many in the entertainment industry. There's no doubt that he and his team at DreamWorks have been extraordinarily successful. Shrek was a masterpiece... okay, maybe not a masterpiece, but it had me laughing for days... and i still use bits of the movie in my everyday speech... "That'll do Donkey, that'll do."

Would Katzenberg be a good choice for Disney's CEO? I personally don't think so. If you read Kim Masters' "Keys to the Kingdom: How Michael Eisner Lost His Grip" (a great book, by the way, if you want to know the whole life story of Michael Eisner to date), you'll see that Jeff has been painted as a feisty go-getter, but not executive management material and not the creative genius that we really need. Ideally, we would have two leaders at the top of Disney... if you look historically at Disney when it was successful there were two people in the lead -- a creative genius saying "Let's do this!!" and a financial wiz going "How the hell am I going to pay for this." In the end, though, creative almost always won out and the finance boys found creative ways to make the finances work and in the end, it was a profitable way of doing business.

That being said, I have to give my two cents on the topic of shareholder value. Personally, I don't give a damn about shareholder value. I think that should be of secondary concern, if it's a concern at all. The profits the company make should be re-invested back into making the company more profitable. People who hold Disney stock should hold it as a long-term valuation stock, not a short-term money-making profiteering stock. This company was founded on principles of making magic, not money. That should be why people hold it. Does that mean institutional investors like CalPERS and others should ditch their stock? Not necessarily -- but they need to understand that Disney isn't any other company. It's not a Microsoft, Apple or Dell. It's a public company, but with a largely private-company mentality (or at least it used to be). When Walt made a decision -- that was the decision. The shareholders trusted him to make the decision that was ultimately in their best interest. Obviously, the same can't be said about Michael... the shareholders have demonstrated their mistrust of his management.

Those are my two cents... take them for what they're worth, and feel free to challenge me on any points.

 

[NemoRocks78]

This really doesn't solve anything....Mike is still with the company. Until he's been removed permanently (along with the rest of that board, including George Mitchell), I won't be happy.:fork:

 

[Disney2002]

Originally posted by NemoRocks78
This really doesn't solve anything....Mike is still with the company. Until he's been removed permanently (along with the rest of that board, including George Mitchell), I won't be happy.:fork:

Well, I hope you're ready to be unhappy for the rest of your life. There is no way an entire board would kick themselves out:hammer:

 

[Shaman]

Disney shares closed up 15 cents (26.80)...hopefully this is the beginning of an upward trend...especially since the news seems like it will only get better...

Atleast I hope the news to come is good...:lookaroun

 

[daksimba]

The board would have solved a TON of arguments on the annoucement of Mitchell with one word:

interm.

If they would have made a point to show that this is only a temporary solution to give the board time to find a correct chairman (which still leaves Mitchell as a possibility.) Everyone would be calmed knowing that the board recognizes that change can't be sudden, and will take time.


But, they didn't do it, and they must suffer the results.

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by daksimba
The board would have solved a TON of arguments on the annoucement of Mitchell with one word:

interm.

If they would have made a point to show that this is only a temporary solution to give the board time to find a correct chairman (which still leaves Mitchell as a possibility.) Everyone would be calmed knowing that the board recognizes that change can't be sudden, and will take time.


But, they didn't do it, and they must suffer the results.

I guess its an attempt at saving face...

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by joefox97

That being said, I have to give my two cents on the topic of shareholder value. Personally, I don't give a damn about shareholder value. I think that should be of secondary concern, if it's a concern at all. The profits the company make should be re-invested back into making the company more profitable. People who hold Disney stock should hold it as a long-term valuation stock, not a short-term money-making profiteering stock. This company was founded on principles of making magic, not money. That should be why people hold it. Does that mean institutional investors like CalPERS and others should ditch their stock? Not necessarily -- but they need to understand that Disney isn't any other company. It's not a Microsoft, Apple or Dell. It's a public company, but with a largely private-company mentality (or at least it used to be). When Walt made a decision -- that was the decision. The shareholders trusted him to make the decision that was ultimately in their best interest. Obviously, the same can't be said about Michael... the shareholders have demonstrated their mistrust of his management.

Those are my two cents... take them for what they're worth, and feel free to challenge me on any points.

Great viewpoint. A valid one that probably no one on these threads will disagree with. However, you can file this under "Not gonna happen anytime soon." Wall Street has become too focused on the short term and "What have you done for me this quarter?". When I listen to all of these Wall Street pundits on CNBC this is exactly what I get frustrated about. They don't get Disney.

I believe that when the last chapter is written on the Eisner saga, we will see that this shareholder value focus forced on him by Wall Street and others, will be one of the reasons why he lost his focus on the magic. I'm not making excuses, just an observation. DVD only sequels, reduced investment in the parks, staff layoffs, etc. were the direct result of this mentality. This issue is not Disney's alone. All public companies are facing it and the dip in the economy after 9/11 only made it worse. There isn't a CEO in the country that isn't being hit by this issue in the face every quarter when they have to issue results in a press conference.

OH well, as they say - "Your mouth to God's Ears" Maybe after Roy's campaign Wall Street will get it. In reality, Wall Street is using Roy to get what they want - someone Wall Street has confidence in. That person is, in my mind, the exact opposite of what Disney needs. I am not getting my hopes up.

 

[Woody13]

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?

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.

Here's a point that might be of some interest. Disney Board members Raymond Watson and Thomas Murphy retired after the shareholders meeting. They (like Roy) were at the mandatory retirement age. So now, Disney has a 10 person board. The interesting thing to me is that Ray Watson was the chief architect of Eisner's current contract that was signed back in 1997 (as amended). We don't know all the "perks" that Eisner has been promised.

However, we do know that if Eisner's contract is terminated early without "good reason", then the company will pay out a lot more than $123,000,000. Eisner's payout will make the Ovitz settlement look like chump change!



Eisner could get $123 mln in takeover
By Matt Andrejczak, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 10:15 PM ET Feb. 11, 2004


WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - Michael Eisner could be even richer if Comcast succeeds in its attempt to take over Walt Disney.

Eisner has a golden parachute worth as much as $123 million, according to calculations based on details of the Disney chairman and chief executive's employment agreement in Disney's latest regulatory filing, a late-January proxy statement.

Comcast (CMCSK: news, chart, profile) made a $66 billion bid for Disney (DIS: news, chart, profile) on Wednesday after Eisner refused to enter discussions with Comcast CEO Brian Roberts earlier this week. Read more.

Under his Disney agreement, Eisner, 61, would be entitled to a bonus worth at least $24 million and stock options valued at $99 million based on Disney's current stock price. The 15 million options have a strike price of $21.10 per share.

The agreement calls for Eisner to be paid a bonus for the length of his contract, which expires September 2006, and the two years thereafter. If he joins another major entertainment firm, he would be paid that bonus for 12-month period following the end of his contract, or through September 2007.

The contract also allows Eisner to receive "continuation of benefits and/or perquisites provided to him during his term" as CEO, according to regulatory filings. The perks aren't detailed.

Eisner can be granted his pay package and end his employment for "good reason" if he isn't "elected or retained as chairman and chief executive and a director of the company," the filing notes.

Eisner has come under fire for Disney's struggling performance. Some of Eisner's multi-million-dollar pay packages over the years haven't helped his image.

Eisner's golden parachute exceeds other packages highlighted in recent times. PeopleSoft CEO Craig Conway could be granted $62 million in options, stock, and cash if his firm is taken over by rival Oracle. Michael Capellas, Compaq's former CEO, received $26.7 million following the merger with H-P. He now runs MCI.

On Wednesday, Institutional Shareholder Services recommended against reelecting Eisner to Disney's board. ISS advises large shareholders on shareholder proposals presented at annual meetings. The recommendation comes as dissident shareholder Roy Disney, a nephew of company founder Walt Disney, attempts to oust Eisner.

Matt Andrejczak is a reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com in Washington.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/sto...e&guid={016AF122-0407-4834-AAAE-5396C4222D66}

Also, you might want to take a look at the Disney Board insider trading. It is very interesting. I'll let you draw your own conclusions:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=DIS