D23 - No Big Theme Park Announcements?

[lebeau]

If the parks are up for sale, I think we should take up a collection. If we promise to bring back the Adventurer's Club, I bet we could raise a few nickles.

 

[Kamikaze]

If the parks are up for sale, I think we should take up a collection. If we promise to bring back the Adventurer's Club, I bet we could raise a few nickles.

I don't think that Disney would be able to withstand the firestorm if they announced they were selling P&R outright. And therefore the deal wouldn't either. If you consider how up in arms a site like this would get, and then just the average parkgoer would be interested as well ... you can't compare it to anything like Anheiser-Busch or anything really ... it would be an epic revolt, I can assure you of that.

 

[JustInTime]

I don't think that Disney would be able to withstand the firestorm if they announced they were selling P&R outright.

I totally agree. I think they would receive extreme backlash. I really, really don't want this to happen.

 

[Kamikaze]

I totally agree. I think they would receive extreme backlash. I really, really don't want this to happen.

I'll put it this way: I don't care much about the declining standards, rising prices, less options for food, etc. I can deal with all that, and I won't complain about it very often.

But you sell the parks? To a foreign company? (It would have to be, really) And its rumored to be a Chinese company? I'll riot.

It could possibly be the event that turns Twitter use into a social-political movement.

 

[mgpan]

Waaaay out on a limb...

But how about involvement by a certain company with a fruit icon that was recently in the news about having a $75B or so cash reserve and who's figurehead also has Disney ties?

 

[Horizonsfan]

I'll put it this way: I don't care much about the declining standards, rising prices, less options for food, etc. I can deal with all that, and I won't complain about it very often.

But you sell the parks? To a foreign company? (It would have to be, really) And its rumored to be a Chinese company? I'll riot.

It could possibly be the event that turns Twitter use into a social-political movement.

I couldn't disagree more. To me maintaining Walt's original standards and keeping the parks top notch are far, far, far more important than Disney outright owning them.

 

[Kamikaze]

I couldn't disagree more. To me maintaining Walt's original standards and keeping the parks top notch are far, far, far more important than Disney outright owning them.

Your prerogative. But nothing says that any company that buys them would have to hold to any standards, let alone the original Disney ones.

I'm not saying I like the cutbacks, just that they don't ruin my experience or love for the parks. My point was that most of the little things that get discussed here are not deal breakers for me - such as limiting the monorails to 1hr after MK closing. I would have to say that if they sold the parks to a Chinese company, I would never return.

But how about involvement by a certain company with a fruit icon that was recently in the news about having a $75B or so cash reserve and who's figurehead also has Disney ties?

I've always thought that Jobs and Apple was their ace in the hole. He is the largest shareholder, after all. If he approved the sale of P&R, that would lead me to switch to Android.

 

[njDizFan]

I'll put it this way: I don't care much about the declining standards, rising prices, less options for food, etc. I can deal with all that, and I won't complain about it very often.

But you sell the parks? To a foreign company? (It would have to be, really) And its rumored to be a Chinese company? I'll riot.

It could possibly be the event that turns Twitter use into a social-political movement.

ok I'll bite, why would you be so upset that a foreign country owned the P&R division?

Are you afraid they won't keep the parks up to the standard of Disney( which would be contracted)

Are you against all things non-American, i.e don't buy foreign goods

Or upset that the park WED imagined is now owned by outside investors ( like they are now)

???

 

[Master Yoda]

I couldn't disagree more. To me maintaining Walt's original standards and keeping the parks top notch are far, far, far more important than Disney outright owning them.

Quite true, but we have no idea what a foreign, or domestic for that matter, investor with full control would do to the parks. They very well might uphold or even exceed Walt's standards but they could just as likely run the place into the ground and milk it for all its worth. There are just far to many unknowns for my taste.

 

[Kamikaze]

ok I'll bite, why would you be so upset that a foreign country owned the P&R division?

The name and brand 'Walt Disney' and the corresponding parks is as American as apple pie and baseball.

Are you afraid they won't keep the parks up to the standard of Disney( which would be contracted)

I would love to see something like a cleanliness standard be
1) worked into a contract
2) be enforcable in that contract
3) have a way to test that standard

Hint: Its not possible.
There is no way to quantify the 'Disney standard' and therefore no way to enforce it. And what would happen if it was broken? Disney would get to buy the parks back a la the Disney Stores? The money from the sale would be long gone by then. Look at it this way - the current state of the parks is the current 'Disney standard'. So that would be what they would have to keep to, the current standard at time of purchase.

Are you against all things non-American, i.e don't buy foreign goods

Or upset that the park WED imagined is now owned by outside investors ( like they are now)

???

I'm against what would be the destruction of an American icon.
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts - Present by ChinaMobile
Just doesn't have the same ring to it, or the same meaning.


And yes, I haven't purchased a single Anheuser-Busch product since they were sold, and never will. BL used to be my beer of choice.

 

[Lee]

Ooooohhhh....this is fun!

Question to further the debate:
Does the OLC run its Disney parks better or worse than Disney itself does?

 

[Horizonsfan]

Your prerogative. But nothing says that any company that buys them would have to hold to any standards, let alone the original Disney ones.

I would assume to keep the Disney name they'd have to still sign a long-term agreement that would include clauses about standards of the parks. Of course everything discussed is hypotheticals.

I'm not saying I like the cutbacks, just that they don't ruin my experience or love for the parks. My point was that most of the little things that get discussed here are not deal breakers for me - such as limiting the monorails to 1hr after MK closing. I would have to say that if they sold the parks to a Chinese company, I would never return.

What if the Chinese held the parks to a better standard, perhaps better than at any point in the last 20 years?
Blind fear of foreign countries & corporations doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Most "American" companies don't seem to have a problem outsourcing and using them (not that I agree with those practices, just saying)

I'm against what would be the destruction of an American icon.
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts - Present by ChinaMobile
Just doesn't have the same ring to it, or the same meaning.


And yes, I haven't purchased a single Anheuser-Busch product since they were sold, and never will. BL used to be my beer of choice.

That's fine but nobody is holding a gun to Disney's head, nor was there one to AB. That wouldn't be the fault of the foreign corps., that would be the fault of greedy American corps who care more about their own Quarterlies than they do maintaining "Americana".

 

[Kamikaze]

Ooooohhhh....this is fun!

Question to further the debate:
Does the OLC run its Disney parks better or worse than Disney itself does?

Just going by popular opinion, as I've never visited, OLC does spend more and do a better job at upkeep than Disney itself.

That doesn't mean Company B would do the same.

 

[lebeau]

I don't really care who owns the parks as well as they are doing a good job running them. Not saying any prospective new owner would necessarily run the parks better than Disney. But if it was a flat choice between foreign owner and better parks or Disney and declining by degrees, I'd gladly give my money to the foreign company for the better experience at the parks.

It's a small world afterall. Or so I've heard.

 

[Kamikaze]

I would assume to keep the Disney name they'd have to still sign a long-term agreement that would include clauses about standards of the parks. Of course everything discussed is hypotheticals.

As I said in my last post, those standards are impossible to quantify, and if they were, what happens if they were broken? Would we end up with parks that no longer carry the Disney name and characters but exist as theme parks nonetheless? Thats the worst case scenario for everyone involved.

What if the Chinese held the parks to a better standard, perhaps better than at any point in the last 20 years?

There is nothing really 'broken' about the parks. Things that need sprucing up and fixing, sure.

That's fine but nobody is holding a gun to Disney's head, nor was there one to AB. This isn't a fault of the foreign corps., this is a fault of greedy American corps who care more about their own Quarterlies than they do maintaining "Americana".

Of course, and thats what I would be fighting against. Greed for the sake of greed. They make a decent profit on P&R before they start playing with the numbers, but they'd want to get a giant pile all at once instead of money trickling at all times.

I don't really care who owns the parks as well as they are doing a good job running them. Not saying any prospective new owner would necessarily run the parks better than Disney. But if it was a flat choice between foreign owner and better parks or Disney and declining by degrees, I'd gladly give my money to the foreign company for the better experience at the parks.

It's a small world afterall. Or so I've heard.

And what if they sell them and they get worse? Then what? Then its too late, and you can't do anything about it. Do you continue to go because 'It used to be Disney?' I would stand up and fight to prevent ever having to take that chance.

 

[lebeau]

As I said in my last post, those standards are impossible to quantify, and if they were, what happens if they were broken? Would we end up with parks that no longer carry the Disney name and characters but exist as theme parks nonetheless? Thats the worst case scenario for everyone involved.

These kinds of clauses are pretty standard. The new owner could have to pay additional fees beyond licensing fees for non-compliance. Or it could result in them losing the Disney IP. The new owners would most likely sell before they let it come to that.

There is nothing really 'broken' about the parks. Things that need sprucing up and fixing, sure.

The yeti is broken. :drevil:

 

[lebeau]

And what if they sell them and they get worse? Then what? Then its too late, and you can't do anything about it. Do you continue to go because 'It used to be Disney?' I would stand up and fight to prevent ever having to take that chance.

So, you prefer the devil you know.

That's fine. But from your earlier comments, it sounds like if a Chinese company came in and raised the standards beyond anything any domestic Disney park has ever seen, you'd be going to Six Flags in a "Buy American" T-shirt.

 

[Zummi Gummi]

Oh, no, not this debate again. :hammer::hammer::hammer:


Even if Meg's new position were eliminated as the result of a sale, WDW would still need a President, and that would be Meg. Even with her new title, she's still President of the resort.

 

[devoy1701]

Oh, no, not this debate again. :hammer::hammer::hammer:


Even if Meg's new position were eliminated as the result of a sale, WDW would still need a President, and that would be Meg. Even with her new title, she's still President of the resort.

I think it's the other way around, the position that Meg was put in could insulate her from a pending sale...She would be the Disney Rep that oversaw the operation from the Disney side of things.

Atleast that's how I took it.

EDIT: Well it helps to read back a few pages to see what context people were talking about Meg in! We currently have someone in my group at my company here who is in the same situation...this person was "reassigned from VP of America Sales" to "Chief of Staff". A heck of a title, but a BS one at that with virtually no actually responsibility. They collect the same check they used to, but don't really get to play any of their own hands anymore. I think we're just waiting for this person to walk theirselves out of here.

So if there is some sort of sale, Meg will infact remain with the company (if she doesn't retire), but her chief responsibilities of WDW will no longer be there...so she would literally have a do nothing job since she is overseen by Weiss.

I think...I've already checked out this week though!

 

[misterID]

Just going by popular opinion, as I've never visited, OLC does spend more and do a better job at upkeep than Disney itself.

That doesn't mean Company B would do the same.

Any person/company who bought P&R would be operating under the same stringent rules as the OLC regarding upkeep and such.

But that doesn't mean you would get a group or person who operates the same way as OLC, where they believe in creativity, expansion and originality in every park.

Ooooohhhh....this is fun!

Question to further the debate:
Does the OLC run its Disney parks better or worse than Disney itself does?

Easy answer. Better.