Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Considering how long it takes Disney to build attractions nowadays, waiting until the back half of the decade to start investing doesn't seem like such a great idea.
Back half of the next decade, LOL, LOL, LOL. So, so stupid.Disney CFO says its planned $60 billion parks and experiences investment will ramp up in the back half of the next decade
Disney CFO says its planned $60 billion parks and experiences investment will ramp up in the back half of the next ten years
Disney CFO says its planned $60 billion parks and experiences investment will ramp up in the back half of the next ten yearswww.wdwmagic.com
Because’s bobs “legacy” program from 2015-2021…was IT.So in reality, they 'aint doin' squat.'
Iger will be long gone sailing on his super yachtBack half of the next decade, LOL, LOL, LOL. So, so stupid.
Disembodied voice of Ron Howard: “They did not.”So, "We totally have plans and 100% will totally do them in the coming years. We promise..."
Who is going to line up and drink that Kool-Aid?Disney CFO says its planned $60 billion parks and experiences investment will ramp up in the back half of the next decade
Disney CFO says its planned $60 billion parks and experiences investment will ramp up in the back half of the next ten years
Disney CFO says its planned $60 billion parks and experiences investment will ramp up in the back half of the next ten yearswww.wdwmagic.com
So in reality, they 'aint doin' squat.'
How exactly would people propose that spending be front loaded? By making already high design costs even higher?
No…we got it…Article headline is poorly worded. It makes it sound like the spending ramps up in the back half of the 2030's.
What they actually said was the back half of the next 10 years. So 2028-2033.
How exactly would people propose that spending be front loaded? By making already high design costs even higher?
That's a fair question. I think the actual point is that they don't truly intend to spend this unless we see economic rebound. I would argue this is a way to attempt to lure analysts, address Universal questions and yet leave a MASSIVE open door to saying "economic realities have changed" in the coming few years and slash that actual spend. It's not that it is misapplied - it's that the number was manufactured from the beginning.
What you are describing is a crime. You’re telling us that a week into a new job and a guy agreed to join in a criminal conspiracy. One based on the premise of finance types not even glancing at economic data.That's a fair question. I think the actual point is that they don't truly intend to spend this unless we see economic rebound. I would argue this is a way to attempt to lure analysts, address Universal questions and yet leave a MASSIVE open door to saying "economic realities have changed" in the coming few years and slash that actual spend. It's not that it is misapplied - it's that the number was manufactured from the beginning.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.