Iger to step down in 2015, Leave company in 2016

[WDW1974]

63 isn't that old for CEO actually. Apparently the average age 56 but about 25% of CEOs in the US are over 60.

Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone run HUGE media companies that compete with Disney ... and they're closer to 90 than 60. Of course, they actually own/control them whereas Iger is just a manager.

And Meg as CEO was just a joke anyway. But someone made a good point that if Staggs was to be put into a more senior position that would put Crofton in line for the EVP (or whatever title they use internall) of Parks and Resorts would could be very unfortunate.

There's strong talk that Meg will be leaving the company next year when her current contract is up. It isn't because people are unhappy with her, rather personal issues that really exist. Either way, she is in her final role with Disney.

 

[twinnstar]

Lasseter is a very creative guy, and I am glad that he is in the position that he has. I don't think that I would want him running the entire business though, because he hasn't really proved himself as a business man. This is why Walt needed Roy way back when as well. Dreams mean nothing if you can't manage the money behind them.

agreed - but what about Staggs AND Lasseter - both at the helm, working together! Obviously they cant have the same titles, but you get what im saying. Like Walt and Roy - a creative guy and a businessman! think of the awesomeness that could happen. ooh.

 

[WDW1974]

Up until late July, it was soaring. It broke $40. And then it collapsed, hovering between the $29 and $32 in recent weeks. The threat of a double dip recession is part of the issue, but I think the company was overvalued to begin with.

I'm talking over a decade, not a brief surge when all media companies were doing likewise.

The fact is the company hasn't gained real value. It has stagnated.

 

[WDW1974]

Part of the blame for the inflated prices on the creatives that everyone loves...Imagineering. They have gotten to the point where they are charging a fortune for their developments. If Disney had done Potter it would have cost twice as much.

Twice?

That's being kind.

I'd say 3-4 times the cost.:hammer:

 

[Pioneer Hall]

No, they weren't. The BoD doesn't need to visit a theme park to check expansion possibilities. They were there to agree on a framework to sell all/part of P&R and showcase the property to possible investors/buyers, which they did. Fanbois can stick their fingers in their ears and say they can't hear the word, but that's it.



Really?!??! Where and when? Where's one person saying they saw them? Where's the photos? Where's the post on The Disney Parks Blog? Steve Jobs was dying, but took the Wild Africa Trek in late June with the board for teambuilding? Sure.



Disney has been talking to people in investment circles as far back as 2007 (possibly earlier) about either taking on a partner in P&R or selling all/part of the unit and taking licensing fees because the BoD doesn't like the exposure Disney faces in that business unit. It has been kept quiet, but it isn't a national security secret.



I would agree he isn't being forced out. But sometimes you can be given five years notice (see Jay Leno).:ROFLOL:



Eisner didn't want to leave. Iger already has post-Disney plans. And you are correct, selling all/part of a division is a BoD decision. But the BoD will usually follow the CEO's recommendations.

I'm sorry, but hearing only a couple of "insiders" speak about a park sale is all we have to go by. Just like those who will believe it, I am skeptical until I see something more. You would think that even the slightest rumor of something so significant would have found it's way to the investing circle and there is no mention of it. I have no idea how informed you or any other "insider" might be, so until I hear something more concrete this is what I will go by in this situation. Call it putting my fingers in my ears, but while I may not be a DisneyInsider (irony or what with my forum name) I have had my time in the investment arenas and never heard something that would so greatly affect the makeup of Disney (and I heard plenty of rumors on plenty of companies that never came to fruition). I will gladly eat my words should a sale be announced and it is stated that they were talking about this with outside investors for so long. However, from what I can tell you are the one that really got this thing going over at LP and that found its way to the other Disney forums.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

agreed - but what about Staggs AND Lasseter - both at the helm, working together! Obviously they cant have the same titles, but you get what im saying. Like Walt and Roy - a creative guy and a businessman! think of the awesomeness that could happen. ooh.

It would just be a new title for Lasseter with the same thing he does now.

 

[WDW1974]

There is no question that you and I have disagreed on a number of things in the past. To a point I agree and disagree with Marvel. It was a risky acquisition, and for now doesn't seem like it is returning well. I am hoping that there are plans for that in the future since they will have it until they decide otherwise. For now I am not thrilled, but let's see what happens later on.

I absolutely agree that the jury is out on Marvel. And you likely have to wait another 5-6 years minimally before judging it.

I just think it is a TERRIBLE fit with Disney. Much like Eddie Sotto was saying about Avatar (in his thread here) feeling more like Universal. There's nothing warm and welcoming and fuzzy about Marvel (same would have been true of DC). But it still isn't fair to judge a business move yet.

I think the difference between all the developments you mentioned are that they occurred over a period of 15-20 years. Yes, the growth was incredible, but Iger has a lot going on right now. His tenure won't be the 20 years that Iger was where he had to rebuild the company. I don't think you can really deny the amount of money that is on the table...it's billions of dollars in many different areas.

I don't disagree that Disney is spending. But whether it is spending wisely or truely taking chances are a different matter.

I don't think opening new resorts in Hawaii, Shanghai, expanding your cruise line, investing in technology are exactly safe moves. I think they are moves that are different, but now that Disney is a relatively safe company they don't have the risk that they might have once had.

Hawaii would have been pretty safe IF the economy hadn't tanked, and IF Japan (where most buyers are expected to come from) hadn't had its worst disaster since WWII and IF its execs hadn't been cooking the books. It still should be an asset in the long run.

Shanghai just had to happen because of the growth and soft power of China. If Disney didn't get in there, then they'd be so far behind other media companies. They already are far behind Viacom, which was the first to spread into the mainland ... SpongeBob is HUGE there.

Cruise line is a total no-brainer. If anything, they waited too long due to the currency issues. DCL is tiny and makes a huge profit and should have added a a few ships 5-6 years ago.

The technology issue ... well, not sure how I feel about that right now. I haven't seen any examples of it making my life more MAGICal. But we'll see. It all depends on how it is used.

I'm definitely not the guy's biggest fan, but I don't think he has run the company into the ground like a lot of people like to say he has. I think that we somewhat agree on that though.

Absolutely. He has been a competent manager. Made some very good decisions and others that we'll have to see about. Also done some things I really don't like from destroying ABC Sports and ABC Daytime ... to cutting studio production and making films that have to be part of a franchise (and firing the wonderful D-I-C-K Cook and replacing him with neophyte Rich Ross) ... to homogenizing (or allowing Rasulo and Staggs) Disney Parks. But he hasn't been a disaster by any stretch. I do believe that unless you have a GREAT leader at the top that it's good to shake things up every so often. I think we're getting to that point with Disney.

 

[WDW1974]

I'm sorry, but hearing only a couple of "insiders" speak about a park sale is all we have to go by. Just like those who will believe it, I am skeptical until I see something more.

That's fine. It also doesn't change things. ... And if Disney doesn't sell all or part of P&R ... or does, but it happens in 2014 ... or 2020, it doesn't change the fact they were kicking the tires years before.

You would think that even the slightest rumor of something so significant would have found it's way to the investing circle and there is no mention of it. I have no idea how informed you or any other "insider" might be, so until I hear something more concrete this is what I will go by in this situation. Call it putting my fingers in my ears, but while I may not be a DisneyInsider (irony or what with my forum name) I have had my time in the investment arenas and never heard something that would so greatly affect the makeup of Disney (and I heard plenty of rumors on plenty of companies that never came to fruition). I will gladly eat my words should a sale be announced and it is stated that they were talking about this with outside investors for so long.

I am a bit surprised that Disney has had it under wraps for so long (or controlled the messengers). I do know I was contacted by a real financial media member back when the Sun Valley moguls retreat was happening for info (and they only know me by my real world dealings, no clue I post on Disney fan forums ... that might have chased them away!:ROFLOL and interviewed, but no story was ever written. Clearly, the reporter went to someone(s) at Disney. What they were told, I have no clue.

However, from what I can tell you are the one that really got this thing going over at LP and that found its way to the other Disney forums.

I started a thread about what I had been told in late 2007. What made it blow up (and one reason why I didn't put it over here where there is more daily traffic/action on boards) was that two days after I put it out, Disney's BoD met in O-Town and a partial or full sale was on the agenda. It was bizarre timing from my Spirited standpoint as I didn't think anything was imminent ... and apparently, even though numerous investment groups were given the royal treatment and toured the resort (which again, I know as a fact), either no one made an offer or no one made a sufficient one ... or they are still talking. I don't know.

 

[njDizFan]

'74, do you think TWDC is going to drag their feet on the new AV-land? This may give them time for the global economy to turn so they can get a quality offer for P&R and let the new owners deal with Cameron.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

'74, do you think TWDC is going to drag their feet on the new AV-land? This may give them time for the global economy to turn so they can get a quality offer for P&R and let the new owners deal with Cameron.

Even if they were selling, why would they drag their feet on something that they seemed so excited to announce? I don't feel that they would have gone through with something so ambitious just to hold on it and hope they can sell it to someone else. If that were the case, why would they bother announcing it at all?

 

[RSoxNo1]

:ROFLOL: Lasseter would have everyone come to work in hawaiian shirts, and WDW would change to "Walt Disney Pixar Universe- The happiest place on earth and cyberspace."

While Lasseter obviously loves Pixar, he loves Disney as well - he recognizes the need for keeping the classic Disney characters in the parks, as well as creating original concepts for the parks as well.

I don't know whether it will be good news, but I do know it won't be bad news. Clearly, Disney is grooming Staggs to be the next guy ... even the way this is being announced gives credence to that.

I would agree he isn't being forced out. But sometimes you can be given five years notice (see Jay Leno).:ROFLOL:

I was all ready to make a Leno joke and you beat me to the punch...

I think it was a $4-billion plus and counting mistake. They can't use the characters everyone has at least heard of in most of their parks, yet their biggest competitor can and does. They don't control movie rights to some of the most valuable properties. And the merchandise isn't flying off the shelves (local outlet store is always loaded with Marvel crap). And even the films are going to reach a point of diminishing returns. How many comic book films are too many?

Trends happen everywhere. I wrote this up in another thread a few days ago, and then ultimately didn't post it. I really expect that the trend in theme parks now a days is going to be the purchase of outside franchises and building wholly immersive environments like Potter, Carsland and Pandora. Eventually, the # of viable franchises will run out, and we're stuck with an entire land based on Breakin' 2 Electric Boogaloo.

This is exactly what's happening with comic book movies now. It took people a while to branch out from Batman and Spiderman movies, and now the comic book movie doesn't have the same clout it used to.

 

[Magenta Panther]

According to our Spirited friend, Iger has quite a bit of support up in NY and has aspirations of Mayor of NYC of Governor of NY.

I think that this will end up being good news for TWDC. He has never shown a hint of creativity within himself and that is what a company like Disney needs at the forefront. Though I am very curious on who will be groomed for successor. I can't see someone like Iger picking someone unlike him to follow in his footsteps.

I hope it's ANYBODY but Rich Ross...

 

[zooey]

So, here's my question. Let's say that the parks and resorts division does get sold to an outside investor. Without knowing who the buyer is, can we lean one way or the other on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing? TDL as example makes this look like it can definitely work if it's the right partnership, but it's also scary to think that someone could come in and undo half a century of work if they didn't fully embrace and understand the brand and its base.

The Iger thing sounds personal to me more than anything, and he never struck me as a guy who had any vision. I don't know if Staggs would be better. The CEO is never going to be a creative force, but they have to be smart enough to surround themselves with the right, passionate people. With that in mind, Staggs might be a little better.

Still, the sale of P&R freaks me out a little.

 

[jt04]

It appears to me that Iger was not made CEO to grow the company exponentially although it has seen respectable growth. He was brought in to pull the company back from the brink. And it was on the brink.

The timing of the Avatar announcement could be tied to this announcement. Likely he will see to it that the project gets through development as he has with Carsland. He has been more involved in Carsland than is assumed from what I have heard.

His mission was clear and now he will use the next few years to ensure it will not be sidetracked in the future. The next CEO will likely be charged with bringing the growth and creativity we all expect from TWDC.

This announcement was really nothing out of the ordinary. I think we all could have predicted it. It is a clear sign the company is back on its feet and ready to move forward.

 

[imagineer boy]

Whelp, time for me to make my move! I'm next in line for the Disney crown.

 

[devoy1701]

So, here's my question. Let's say that the parks and resorts division does get sold to an outside investor. Without knowing who the buyer is, can we lean one way or the other on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing? TDL as example makes this look like it can definitely work if it's the right partnership, but it's also scary to think that someone could come in and undo half a century of work if they didn't fully embrace and understand the brand and its base.

The Iger thing sounds personal to me more than anything, and he never struck me as a guy who had any vision. I don't know if Staggs would be better. The CEO is never going to be a creative force, but they have to be smart enough to surround themselves with the right, passionate people. With that in mind, Staggs might be a little better.

Still, the sale of P&R freaks me out a little.

Why do you say the CEO can't be the creative force? We've had it before.

It appears to me that Iger was not made CEO to grow the company exponentially although it has seen respectable growth. He was brought in to pull the company back from the brink. And it was on the brink.

The timing of the Avatar announcement could be tied to this announcement. Likely he will see to it that the project gets through development as he has with Carsland. He has been more involved in Carsland than is assumed from what I have heard.

His mission was clear and now he will use the next few years to ensure it will not be sidetracked in the future. The next CEO will likely be charged with bringing the growth and creativity we all expect from TWDC.

This announcement was really nothing out of the ordinary. I think we all could have predicted it. It is a clear sign the company is back on its feet and ready to move forward.

I dont think they have any clear direction of where they need to be let alone how to get there.

 

[zooey]

Why do you say the CEO can't be the creative force? We've had it before.

Well, that's true, but I guess I don't see that quality in anyone who would assume the position. With such a massive corporation, that person would have to be so multi-talented, with a business AND creative sense that it's just a long shot. So, I assume that someone with a talented business sense will take the position.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Why do you say the CEO can't be the creative force? We've had it before.



I dont think they have any clear direction of where they need to be let alone how to get there.

But the company isn't what it was before either. Having someone who has a pure creative track record without the business sense would, in my mind be very detrimental to the company. I think the CEO should know the company they are dealing with and embrace creativity...but I also want them to have the sense to shoot down an idea if they don't see it feasibly creating some sort of return.

 

[jt04]

Why do you say the CEO can't be the creative force? We've had it before.



I dont think they have any clear direction of where they need to be let alone how to get there.

A lot of companies suffer from this lack of vision. That is why it will be critical whom they choose to be the next CEO.

Modern progressive thought has played itself out culturally. Everything it can do, it has done. There is nothing left. The well is dry.

They need someone that recognizes this and can bring some cultural changes to the company and a new vision. No easy task.

 

[menamechris]

Although on a completely different tangent some rumors have swirled that the Av-land construction is going to be stalled long enough to pass the buck to the new owners of P&R.

***Don't shoot the messenger***

The problem with that logic being that no one would buy during a time when they would be obligated to deliver immediately. Would you? Would you want to learn a new business while undergoing a major expansion? If anything, all of these projects would be enough to make any serious buyer (as if there is one out there) pass on a deal.

With that being said, why are we discussing this again? This topic was brainscrewed every which way months go - and once it stopped being discussed here the topic died. I think that says something... Whether it is a true story or not that they were peddling P&R - its clearly not relevant now. Otherwise, I would be reading about this on business and investment forums..