News Disney plans to accelerate Parks investment to $60 billion over 10 years

TheMaxRebo

Well-Known Member
This is the problem with having outside investors so vested in a company.

They want return on their investment and they don't want it 1, 2 or 5 years from now. They want to turn a profit constantly.

Disney is looking at how to maintain and grow their theme business over the long term.

and the issue with Disney not being viewed as a long term, blue chip, dividend type stock after seeing the strong performance early in in the pandemic with the streamer count propping up the stock

Really, if one holds Disney stock it *should* be viewed as something that provides good shareholder value over the long term, not something I am looking to flip
 

Indy_UK

Well-Known Member
Disney are in the fortunate position where the parks profits can subsidise the Streaming losses, when after they’ve sold off their linear networks and cut costs of production shouldn’t be too much, even eventually we should reach profitability all round
 

TheMaxRebo

Well-Known Member
I agree with that.

People crap all over Lightning McQueen's Racing Academy but you know what? It has an awesome AA, it's air conditioned, little boys who are too short for RnRC love it, it was reasonably inexpensive to build and operate, and it kills 20 minutes.

it's not a great location and sort of misplaced next to the less family friends RnRC

if they could turn that whole area into a Cars area or make it part of a large Pixar expansion it would be better

but things *like* this are important to each park - heck things like Journey of Water are important to each park (the later is just getting too much build up for what it is meant to be)
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Original Poster
it's not a great location and sort of misplaced next to the less family friends RnRC

if they could turn that whole area into a Cars area or make it part of a large Pixar expansion it would be better

but things *like* this are important to each park - heck things like Journey of Water are important to each park (the later is just getting too much build up for what it is meant to be)
Yeah I'm not saying it's a creative masterpiece, but operationally it's what the (non-MK) parks need.
 

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
As others have said this is something they've taken to the market. They're serious about their intentions.

However, as we can see, there's a bit of a bullwhip effect going on here. The constant changes in organizational strategy and leadership have taken their toll and it'll take a while for the pipeline to get started again. Especially in the modern era where development involves collaboration with the studios who originally developed the intellectual properties they are exploiting.

There's also been a change in culture about how they announce projects that's come straight from Josh. Credit to him, he makes himself very available. Scuttlebutt is he's sick of getting criticized for projects they announce and can't/won't deliver... yet he also knows they have an empty pipeline. Hence "we're considering".
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Yeah I'm not saying it's a creative masterpiece, but operationally it's what the (non-MK) parks need.
I tend to agree but the tucked away location lessens the utility. But yeah more stuff like that.

Every land at MK has at least one theater show that one can pop into on a whim. The other parks need a bunch of attractions like that.
 

fgmnt

Well-Known Member
Please note...

No 5th Gate.​
Disneyland forward is not creating a 3rd gate.​
Parks with only one park are not creating a 2nd gate.​
No new Disneylands elsewhere in the world.​
For now.
I think WDS (correctly) scared the company off of making companion parks for the sake of making them. Let’s say the current standard (a grim standard) is somewhere between 8-12 major attractions at the opening of a main gate (8 actually feels generous, much less 12). I think if less than half of that $17B went directly to attraction development in florida, that would net you something like 8 - $1B attractions or (likely) some other permutation. Why people would want the company to develop an indefinite capital and operational commitment when instead they could put those commitments to individual attractions inside existing parks, i will never understand.
 

Splash4eva

Well-Known Member
What would be your ideal level of investment into WDW in 10 years beyond normal operating costs? 1 new land a year? 1 new land every other year? 2 per year? 1 hotel every 3? Transportation upgrades once a decade? 1 ride update per year?

Just curious.
There is no “ideal” but to answer it would be as needed….
Lets face it. AK and you can argue HS are half day parks and if you dont walk around WS so is Epcot…
Im NOT a fan of overlays especially for attractions that didnt need them all they needed was some TLC.
SWL and TSL are underbuilt. Pandora as well. There are countless areas to expand yet they refuse. Stitch has been vacant for how long now? WoL pavilion? I can go on and on. Im not saying all they have done is wrong but to defend the money they have spent vs what we have now to me is delusional.
 

fgmnt

Well-Known Member
This guy is saying what we all know, Movies and streaming are losers and the parks make money.
This is obvious and everyone knows this.

40 years ago a musical act would go on a tour to promote their album and generate sales for that album. Today, traditional album sales do not exist outside of some diehards chasing the novelty of the medium, and music releases on streaming where artists hope to get enough buzz to justify a money-making tour.

Is this going to hold true for visual media? Is Disney effectively going to end up creating movies and TV shows as advertisement for higher return areas of consumer products and vacations?
 

Indy_UK

Well-Known Member
I can't see how a new park can't be apart of this 60 billion investment in just ten years...
I'm not saying this is going to be WDW's 5th gate, but maybe this includes Shanghai's second park???
Or maybe WDS actually gets more than a frozen land around their new lake, lol

The scaling back in Paris is pretty poor.

Massive expansion with 2-3 lands has turned into a massive landscape addition with a Frozen land with one average ride and a Tangled Carrousel.
 

TheIceBaron

Active Member
I think WDS (correctly) scared the company off of making companion parks for the sake of making them. Let’s say the current standard (a grim standard) is somewhere between 8-12 major attractions at the opening of a main gate (8 actually feels generous, much less 12). I think if less than half of that $17B went directly to attraction development in florida, that would net you something like 8 - $1B attractions or (likely) some other permutation. Why people would want the company to develop an indefinite capital and operational commitment when instead they could put those commitments to individual attractions inside existing parks, i will never understand.

That is certainly one view, however people advocating for a 5th park at WDW aren't simultaneously saying existing parks shouldn't also have investment. $16-17 billion for WDW could have plenty of attractions for existing parks as well as a 5th gate. In 1990s dollars Animal Kingdom took $1 billion to build ($2 billion adjusted for inflation today). Galaxy's edge was about $1 billion as well. While Animal Kingdom was and still is underbuilt, $16 billion investment could arguably make AK and HS full day parks with enough left over for a 5th park.

Additionally, they know crowded parks make for unhappy guests and lower per guest spending, a 5th gate could possibly help spread out guests more efficiently across the resort. The 5th park could be situated near MK to absorb some of their overcrowding. We all know MK has severe overcrowding problems compounded by the fact that MK is more isolated compared with the rest of the resort that many people are anchored there for most of the day. The language in their announcement today suggests a 5th park at WDW is on the table.
 

lentesta

Premium Member
Personally, the numbers aren't wildly unbelievable to me (especially after Len broke it down that it's about 25% above normal). BUT, I do remain skeptical it happens to those numbers due to stock pressures. I also think people are kind of putting their "Believe it when I see it" idea to what is being built as opposed to the money spent. It's more about questioning if this will be some grand expansion as opposed to money spent to refurb/redo current rides (and thus not expanding capacity). Who knows, maybe stuff gets greenlit soon, and we are going to see some great new expansions in 2030.

In an unrelated announcement: I'm planning to double the number of supermodels I date over the next 10 years.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
Maybe there is legitimate DCL expansion planned, time to circle back to expansion at DLR... but I suspect that this is more puffed up, try to change the narrative, blue sky, wait for the ground situation to resolve than true ambition.

I have no doubt this has been part of their plan for a long time. They asked Bruce Vaughn to come back. They cancelled Lake Nona. They are trying to hire back Imagineers. They are definitely planning to spend 60 billion... as of today.

But tomorrow... ?
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
you keep citing this guy.. and every post makes me find him less and less credible.

Anyone paying attention to the real news in the market today? (Psst.. F E D)

The second post is real Nostradamus kinda stuff. "Those that replace the shrinking revenue will end up on top" -- Fascinating!
He's a shill, plain and simple. Reputation score: 0 out of 0 stars.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom