CEO Bob Chapek?

[_ZJ]

Oh, forgot to mention that DIS would be drastically overpaying for these assets if this were to transpire.

So now you're an M&A expert? Your abilities never cease to amaze me.

 

[Nj4mwc]

His perspective is that this is very bad. Very. For multiple reasons, but the most important one being the Murdochs and what they represent and their general repugnant natures.

One of the biggest factors in the dumbing down of American society, what I not so affectionately termed Walmarting, started in the 1990s with FOX News. Suddenly, facts weren't as important as pimping an ideology and often taking absurd and obscene liberties to do so. We would not be here today as a society if not for FOX and that comes from Rupert and his spawn. And before someone comments that his spawn don't subscribe to the filthy pablum his networks here and abroad put out, they love profiting from it. So, it's akin to being anti-drugs while being a drug dealer or a big phmara exec!

If this deal happens, and I have strong belief that it will, then Rupert or James are going to wind up on Disney's BoD (no, they won't be replacing Bob!) So, you will have them owning a network (FOX) that is a de facto PR arm of the current vile American regime and them also having significant power at another media company with its own news department (ABC). If anyone thinks that could possibly be a good thing, then they haven't watched as consolidation has taken over so many industries from airlines to steel to department stores etc etc.

I know fanbois have absurd wet dreams when things like this come out. And it always flows back to what is important to THEM! So, I get stuck with nasty notes from ignorant slugs telling me this is all part of The Weatherman's genius plan to get Marvel rights back from UNI. Seriously. A member here sent me that. Disney is going to hold Simpsons rights, which they don't want or care about, over UNI until it simply hands over the Marvel rights ad Disney wins. The Sheriff is glorious, isn't he?

This is about Wall Street and Bob Iger and his ego. The Street says he needs to make one more big deal and the ones he has been after haven't worked out for one reason or another. So, he will take a grotesque amount of shareholder money and welcome the devils into the company. And it will all be played up as gloriously as the number of spectators on Inauguration Day this year. And people will talk about synergies and Disney owning so much more IP, because it doesn't have enough right now, does it? They'll point to how this will help Disney sell its content directly to the people because that is a popular talking point in the Always Spin Zone.

But it is horrible for Americans and anyone who sees any bit of Disney left in TWDC. And, it would be just as bad if the deal went south and it became a Comcast buy. This type of thing should just never be allowed. One family of crazy Aussies should never control such a large portion of American media. But the WH resident owes the,. owes the, BIGLY. So, watch as this happens.

My perspective is we are living in a true upside down right now.

I love Disney and I love The Simpsons but I want Disney having nothing to do with the Simpsons. (. I wish somehow the Simpsons could become an entity free from fox). I hate the fact that the Simpsons is a very large piece of Fox's success, helping them build a network and eventually their terrible news channel.

 

[alphac2005]

So now you're an M&A expert? Your abilities never cease to amaze me.

That could very well be the case as when you've been in high places, you're utilized all over the place because of your knowledge and skill-set even if it isn't your area of expertise. My father was a high up the food chain executive and there were several instances that he became involved very hands on with bankruptcy reorganizations and M&A even though that wasn't his primary area. You would have though that he had a law degree and a master's degree, but it was his undergrad and understanding of how the wheel works so to speech and corporate functioning that they brought him into those other areas.

So, while you want to be snarky to @WDW1974, there really are people that are knowledgeable all over the corporate map and your snark is directed at someone who's been on here for years with a track record unmatched outside of a few.

 

[mikejs78]

I think it is at least debatable that this acquisition/merger is a good business decision. There are a lot of assets that would need a serious infusion of cash to grow and remain solvent. It also will over weight content in a fast changing environment.

But more importantly is this good for the country and the Disney brand? Having 1 studio represent nearly half of the country's box office revenue-twice what MGM had in their 30's heyday(and that was almost considered a monopoly). Owning so much consumable media such as sports and TV broadcasting is not a good thing if you are at all concerned about the diversification of art/media.

The Disney brand is already so muddled with the recent lateral acquisitions that what exactly is TWDC. Adding these properties will exacerbate this 10 fold. Disney is still viewed as a semi-family orientated media company, while I love the content of FX , does it really scream Disney? Muppets, Pixar I can see, Star Wars, Marvel and Fox not so much.

Did Pretty Woman and Splash scream Disney? How about the Color of Money or Bad Company? There are many reasons this deal may be a good or bad idea, but content style isn't one of them as Disney has produced more mature content for decades under the Touchstone brand.

 

[mikejs78]

From the Murdoch’s perspective, Disney/Fox would give them control of...

• TWO national broadcasters (ABC & Fox) with O&Os
• Two cable sports channels (FS1 & the ESPN suite)
• 50% of AETN (Lifetime, History, A&E, Viceland) and 40% of VICE
• FX suite (FX, FXX, FXM) and National Geographic
• The Disney Channel suite (Everywhere, but China )
• 60% of Hulu
• Two Hollywood studios (Walt Disney Pictures and 20th)
• Four animation studios (WDAS, Pixar, Blue Sky, Locksmith)
• Two Bollywood Studios (Fox Star & UTV)
• Two South Asian cable giants (Star & UTV)
• Sky Group
  • BSkyB/Sky UK (which they’ve been trying to acquire outright for years)
  • Sky Deutschland
  • Sky Italia

That’s just where the two companies overlap. Plus, there’s all the assets News Corp owns like the Wall Street Journal, News International and Harper Collins.

The size of this potential leviathan is stupefying.

How many times must it be said? The.Murdochs.Would.Not.Have.Control. The would own something like 1-3% of Disney which isn't close to a controlling interest.

 

[mikejs78]

Um, maybe you missed a major piece here, the Murdoch family KEEPS the FOX Sports networks. FOX Broadcasting, FOX Sports, and FOX News are not part of the Disney deal. You're right in what you say, but that's not the deal. The Murdochs are keeping the constantly growing money making elements that they own in the 20th Century portfolio.

U.S. anti-trust wouldn't allow a purchase of the sports components as Disney would be in monopolistic territory with ESPN and FOX Sports (along with their regional networks). And, as noted, the Murdochs have no interest in selling those interests.

Some reports have stated that Fox keeps Fox sports but sells the regional networks.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

How many times must it be said? The.Murdochs.Would.Not.Have.Control. The would own something like 1-3% of Disney which isn't close to a controlling interest.

Maybe you don’t understand the Murdochs.

 

[peter11435]

Maybe you don’t understand the Murdochs.

If they wanted to own 1-3 percent of TWDC they could do that on their own without this deal.

 

[ford91exploder]

Maybe you don’t understand the Murdochs.

Nope he certainly does not understand the Murdochs. With this Fox gets a seat on the board and a huge block of stock which **WILL** be controlled by the Murdochs rather than Fox shareholders as a whole yes technically Fox will own the shares but you can bet your bottom dollar that the Murdochs will CONTROL that block and its not really important who owns the stock its's who controls the voting rights that matters.

 

[mikejs78]

Nope he certainly does not understand the Murdochs. With this Fox gets a seat on the board and a huge block of stock which **WILL** be controlled by the Murdochs rather than Fox shareholders as a whole yes technically Fox will own the shares but you can bet your bottom dollar that the Murdochs will CONTROL that block and its not really important who owns the stock its's who controls the voting rights that matters.

I understand the Murdoch's quite well thank you. Doing what you suggest would require a major overhaul of Disney's stock structure which is no easy feat. Just because the Murdoch's have a majority voting interest in Fox, they won't likely get it at Disney because the stock structure isn't set up that way. I find it unlikely that the current board would approve a deal that altered the stock structure in that way. Now that doesn't mean that Murdoch doesn't come on board Disney as COO or something and heir apparent, but to say that the Murdoch's will control all fox converted stock is just silly.

 

[_ZJ]

That could very well be the case as when you've been in high places, you're utilized all over the place because of your knowledge and skill-set even if it isn't your area of expertise. My father was a high up the food chain executive and there were several instances that he became involved very hands on with bankruptcy reorganizations and M&A even though that wasn't his primary area. You would have though that he had a law degree and a master's degree, but it was his undergrad and understanding of how the wheel works so to speech and corporate functioning that they brought him into those other areas.

So, while you want to be snarky to @WDW1974, there really are people that are knowledgeable all over the corporate map and your snark is directed at someone who's been on here for years with a track record unmatched outside of a few.

No one asked you about your father. Deals in the tens of billions aren't handled by noobs. Tell me, what corporate titles has @WDW1974 held to earn the experience you claim to know of? He prefers the shadows of anonymity, so good luck answering. Sharing rumors for an attraction is just a wee bit different than valuing a corporate acquisition from the outside. As a rule, I don't trust persons in matters of importance if they're not willing to show their face.

But tell us more about your father, it seems relevant.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

¿Dónde estás @ParentsOf4?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I understand the Murdoch's quite well thank you. Doing what you suggest would require a major overhaul of Disney's stock structure which is no easy feat. Just because the Murdoch's have a majority voting interest in Fox, they won't likely get it at Disney because the stock structure isn't set up that way. I find it unlikely that the current board would approve a deal that altered the stock structure in that way. Now that doesn't mean that Murdoch doesn't come on board Disney as COO or something and heir apparent, but to say that the Murdoch's will control all fox converted stock is just silly.

A dummy BoD could be bent to the Murdochs demands. IF this deal goes through, DIS shareholders, and their proxies, will need to fight tooth and nail to protect their rights because the Murdoch faction could slowly erode them over time and build the case for a two tier system.

 

[njDizFan]

Did Pretty Woman and Splash scream Disney? How about the Color of Money or Bad Company? There are many reasons this deal may be a good or bad idea, but content style isn't one of them as Disney has produced more mature content for decades under the Touchstone brand.

I am certainly aware of the history of Touchstone and other theatrical films done outside the Disney brand. And the key word is outside the Disney brand. Touchstone currently has I believe 1 film slated for the rest of the decade and in general TWDC is moving towards an even more synergized strategy between all divisions.

I have no issues with Disney going the Touchstone route for future films in the R spectrum and more serious films. It is just change from the recent strategy and I am concerned either the possibly newly acquired acquisitions would either be watered down to fit the Disney brand or merch/parks will start shoehorning these IPs into other platforms. I don't want to go into Casey's and see an official YES network hotdog or Goofy-Fargo t shirt mashups on the Disney store site (touch of hyperbole there).

 

[asianway]

Oh, forgot to mention that DIS would be drastically overpaying for these assets if this were to transpire.

Theyll be getting some overlap so cost savings based on efficiencies, some IP, little of which is in Disney's wheelhouse and IMO stale, the Xmen/FF rights which is a plus for them, but...Im not seeing the rush to overpay for the assets. This sounds like when Eisner bought Saban all over again on a larger scale.

 

[ford91exploder]

A dummy BoD could be bent to the Murdochs demands. IF this deal goes through, DIS shareholders, and their proxies, will need to fight tooth and nail to protect their rights because the Murdoch faction could slowly erode them over time and build the case for a two tier system.

Murdochs have raised doing this to an art form. Come in as 'minor' shareholders after 2-3 years they are running the show

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Theyll be getting some overlap so cost savings based on efficiencies, some IP, little of which is in Disney's wheelhouse and IMO stale, the Xmen/FF rights which is a plus for them, but...Im not seeing the rush to overpay for the assets. This sounds like when Eisner bought Saban all over again on a larger scale.

Can we talke about the cable assets for a quick minute? Buying cable channels at this time, given the shift towards direct to consumer (HBO Now, Filmstruck, proposed Disney/ESPN streamers) and large multi audience streamers like Amazon, Hulu and Netflix, is the dumbest thing you could do. Those services are killing the general interest (Freeform, TNT, TBS, USA, FX) and niche (Comedy Central, ESPN, Lifetime, OWN, remaining educational channels like NatGeo) cable networks. Oprah’s decision to pare down her stake in OWN will be seen as a brilliant move because her company won’t be as tied to the old model. She gets to maintain HARPO’s production capacity at OWN for now, but she’s free to go once the ship sinks. FX is swell and all, but it’s network head John Landgraff and producers like Ryan Murphy that give it value. It being a basic cable network will drag them down over time. You don’t need to buy 21st Century Fox to establish that dynamic in a TV production division. Disney/ABC could do that and develop those kinds of shows exclusively for Hulu if they wanted to. Wait, that’s right, Bob Iger isn’t capable of building new business ventures because he has no imagination.

In both the press and fandom, no one seems to understand that the Disney streaming service is designed to transition the Disney Channel suite, and just the Disney Channel, away from being reliant on cable revenue. It’s not a Netflix killer. They’ve made the correct call in deciding the best way to keep that money flowing is to add value to the suite by holding onto Pay TV rights.

You’re on the right track to compare it to Saban/Fox Family, but the initial vision of “XYZ”, as a general interest network with Disney/Touchstone programming, wasn’t wrong, the execution was. A better comparison would be something like Discovery Communications’ pending purchase of Scripps (Food Network, HGTV, Travel Channel). Great for the present, but as we move away from cable tv, it will fall apart because the organization isn’t strong enough to move forward. The Discovery Channel suite isn’t at the quality level or have the public goodwill it once had. The same could be said for the Scripps assets.

 

[EvilChameleon]

Um, maybe you missed a major piece here, the Murdoch family KEEPS the FOX Sports networks. FOX Broadcasting, FOX Sports, and FOX News are not part of the Disney deal. You're right in what you say, but that's not the deal. The Murdochs are keeping the constantly growing money making elements that they own in the 20th Century portfolio.

U.S. anti-trust wouldn't allow a purchase of the sports components as Disney would be in monopolistic territory with ESPN and FOX Sports (along with their regional networks). And, as noted, the Murdochs have no interest in selling those interests.

The regional FOX Sports networks are absolutely included in the deal.

http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/disn...rts-network-but-not-fs1-in-upcoming-deal.html

 

[the.dreamfinder]

The regional FOX Sports networks are absolutely included in the deal.

http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/disn...rts-network-but-not-fs1-in-upcoming-deal.html

He was talking about FS1 and broadcast tv Fox Sports.

 

[seascape]

Um, maybe you missed a major piece here, the Murdoch family KEEPS the FOX Sports networks. FOX Broadcasting, FOX Sports, and FOX News are not part of the Disney deal. You're right in what you say, but that's not the deal. The Murdochs are keeping the constantly growing money making elements that they own in the 20th Century portfolio.

U.S. anti-trust wouldn't allow a purchase of the sports components as Disney would be in monopolistic territory with ESPN and FOX Sports (along with their regional networks). And, as noted, the Murdochs have no interest in selling those interests.

The regional networks are included and going to Disney.