Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I can't even begin to figure out why we would think it needs to be in a stronger position. Seems to me that TWDC is pretty strong in spite of the, possibly erroneous, thoughts about the weakness of ESPN.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
CEO Bob Chapek?
- Thread starter mikejs78
- Start date
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Stock price is NOT the goal, At one time Zynga developers of Farmville and other facebook games had a stock valuation higher than all of the US automakers. Are you seriously implying that facebook games were worth more than all US vehicle production!!!!! Now they are worth 3 billion - much more reasonable
Stocks have become gambling chips in the Wall St casino and no longer have ties to real economic value.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
It will be fun watching Murdoch/Perlmutter devour Iger a couple of Great White Sharks devouring a tasty baitfish,
Iger's no match for that pair of sharks and collectively the two of them will control a huge block of shares enough to ensure full control of the BoD.
However it will NOT be fun to watch what happens at the parks. UNI under Blackstone will be a best case scenario.
I do think that we will look at the days under Iger as the 'good ol days'. Back when Disney was an independent company and not part of Murdoch's media empire.
Remember Murdoch is a street fighter Iger is simply a tool who found himself in the right place at the right time.
Perlmutter and Murdoch have very different approaches to business though. I don't want the Murdochs anywhere near Disney (I doubt they will be involved other than maybe a board seat...). But that clash between Murdoch and Perlmutter would be popcorn-worthy.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
DIS is up 1.19% YTD. That is not a great or even good number.
S&P 500 is up over 17% for the year
Last edited:
More doom and gloom. This will be a great deal for Disney, all divisions. Parks and Resorts profit from more IP. They even get a bigger check from Univesal for years to come from the Simpson's land and the 2 Fox World parks being built.
The movie studios will make more money as a percentage of the box office receipts because they will have more negotiation power. Look at the share for the new SW movie.
For direct to consumer programming think of the complete set of entertainment offerings they will have. Adding Fox's cable channels to they current Disney slate makes Hulu the best option for the skinny bundle. Then for people who want to just have the choce to watch what they want when they want think of all the movies and tv shows a Disney streaming service can offer.
Then there is ESPN. Do you think any cable company could drop them when it also comes with the rights to the local team? 22, count them 22 regional sports channels including YES in the N.Y., NJ and Connecticut. This helps with the one and only area that has weakness but is still very profitable.
As for James Murdoch having a powerful position in the combined company, you should just wait and see. He will prove himself and show you that you are wrong and he will be great for Disney.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
My thoughts too.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
It may or may not be the gauge that the general public uses, but, if a company can hold it's own on Wall Street it will last a lot longer then one that can't. You seem to be forgetting the most important part and that is public support. A good idea may have a value, but, it is meaningless unless the public holds that same view. However, without money to back it up while either building a demand or even maintaining, they will soon be on the bottom rung. The Disney Company is no longer a gamble, it is a sure thing.
As long as those two areas of examination stay high (stock value and demand) then Bob Iger will be an extremely successful business man. He won't go down in history as highly creative, which everyone seem to think is a necessity, but, he will be a huge success. I know that sounds like a bitter pill to take, but, there it is. Any high end executive, with minor exceptions, will surround himself with the kind of people that can be trusted to know what to do. It is foolish to think that one single person can have the ability to do everything themselves. They may take the credit for every good thing that happens, but, that is what they get paid for.
It is sort of like that silly question posted on another thread, Who really created Mickey Mouse, Walt or Ub. The answer is both, of course. Walt had the idea and Ub was able to make it be what Walt had envisioned. Walt, however, took all the credit, which is pretty much how it should be. Who takes all the credit for Apple? Steve Jobs didn't do the things necessary to create the computer, he told Woz what he wanted and it became reality. Comparatively how much credit did Steve Wozniak get publicly. Almost none!
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Indeed i want whatever he's smoking ...
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Woz wanted no publicity, In the engineering community he is a god. There would be no Apple without Jobs AND Woz it was the team which made Apple happen.
Steve was always the public face of the company, while eng made unique quality hardware
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Its a sucker play, Murdoch is reeling in Iger with access to his Chinese broadcast rights. Once they hook the fish, Murdoch/Perlmutter will proceed to fillet the fish by their control of a huge block of stock.
Murdoch wants ABC/ESPN to add to the media assets in the package. the studios and parks will sell for a huge price.
Murdoch - Media
Perlmutter - Studios
P&R - Auction block
Chappie Might get P&R at least as a caretaker
Apple would have been better
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Are you aware of the role James Murdoch played in the News of the World phone hacking scandal. He’s scum in a bespoke suit with a fancy accent.
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
He is also the CEO of a large media conglomerate with rights to international televised sports that can be integrated into an existing domestic sports media conglomerate.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
What happens when the sport leagues around the world create their own conglomerate to sell direct to consumer? ESPN, FSN Regional and Sky are only distributors.
Thank you for this. That's the point I've tried to make in other posts. Dusney has enough baggage with Lasseter. They don't need to bring in this and other similar issues from other Murdoch holdings. Does a world wide entertainment company want to be associated with the name of Murdoch after that scandal?
Something to consider - and perhaps we should start a thread solely to discuss the purchase by Disney of some of Fox. Fox approached Disney. Consider what it will be keeping and how an infusion of cash will help. While some parts will make sense for Disney - as others pointed out, owning 60% of Hulu can help Disney in launching it's own streaming service, does the acquisition of another moderately successful studio and regional sports channels make sense? As @the.dreamfinder pointed out, sports leagues are creating their own channels and could start selling directly to the consumer. Isn't part of the problem with drop in revenue for ESPN due to cord cutting?
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
When you control that much as a single voting block you have a huge influence
Iger has been good for DIS stock (at least until this year). But I can't imagine why Iger would want to inflate the stock price. It couldn't be the 1+ million shares in his retirement nest egg, could it?
Between continuous subscriber losses and ESPN's VERY pricey licensing agreements, this is definitely an area for concern. Adding regional sports networks may be a temporary band-aid, but not a long-term solution. A new CEO may bring new ideas and perspectives for that segment. However, I have serious doubts that Chapek would. He, along with Iger, are very risk-averse, and if something's making money, why would he mess with it? Do you think they'd be spending as much as they are on the parks right now if Universal hadn't upped it's game? I don't. I think they'd be doing things to improve margins with a minimum of capital investment.
So, Iger's legacy will be buying and exploit... I mean, leveraging IP, plus Shanghai? Color me underwhelmed. We all knew he'd get Pixar, after Eisner bungled their relationship horribly. Marvel was a good move, but I think they bought it more for Kevin Feige's movie plan than anything else. Disney is, or at least was, a creative company (Shut it about Walt using existing fairy tales, they were mostly public domain). Acquiring multiple companies for their IP kinda seems like the antithesis of that, and to me sends up warning flags that the company is closer to being "creatively bankrupt" than in decades past. Milking said IP for merchandise and box office receipts (*cough*StarWarsX-XI-XII*cough*) isn't creative. "Cost containment" and "de-risking movies" isn't creative. Fewer original concepts and more sequels sounds very Eisner-esque, and is worrisome.
Between continuous subscriber losses and ESPN's VERY pricey licensing agreements, this is definitely an area for concern. Adding regional sports networks may be a temporary band-aid, but not a long-term solution. A new CEO may bring new ideas and perspectives for that segment. However, I have serious doubts that Chapek would. He, along with Iger, are very risk-averse, and if something's making money, why would he mess with it? Do you think they'd be spending as much as they are on the parks right now if Universal hadn't upped it's game? I don't. I think they'd be doing things to improve margins with a minimum of capital investment.
So, Iger's legacy will be buying and exploit... I mean, leveraging IP, plus Shanghai? Color me underwhelmed. We all knew he'd get Pixar, after Eisner bungled their relationship horribly. Marvel was a good move, but I think they bought it more for Kevin Feige's movie plan than anything else. Disney is, or at least was, a creative company (Shut it about Walt using existing fairy tales, they were mostly public domain). Acquiring multiple companies for their IP kinda seems like the antithesis of that, and to me sends up warning flags that the company is closer to being "creatively bankrupt" than in decades past. Milking said IP for merchandise and box office receipts (*cough*StarWarsX-XI-XII*cough*) isn't creative. "Cost containment" and "de-risking movies" isn't creative. Fewer original concepts and more sequels sounds very Eisner-esque, and is worrisome.
Yes and he was punished for it and learned form it. As an American I understand people can make mistakes, get punished, pay the price and be forgiven. Now if we were to take the view that no one should ever be forgiven for a mistake and prevented from working then we would have real problems. The question is not was he involved in that horrible phone hacking but can he be forgiven and have the right to prove himself qualified for a high post in Disney. I think he has done a good job at Fox after the hacking and am willing to give him a chance.