Is disney parks and resorts for sale?

[wizards8507]

Jimmy Thick-Never underestimate corporate greed...

Couldn't resist.

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save the Walt Disney Company, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Let me just say it now.....

I am not liking this rumor. I have no idea what the future holds, but ownership by some middle eastern foreign dude is not going to keep me renewing my annual pass.

This sort of sale = PR problems x infinity and beyond.

Nice to see that racism has reared its ugly head in this thread.

I would say xenophobia, but why split hairs?

However, don't dismiss the poster so quickly. If there are people on this board who feel like this, you can bet that there are millions more out there who feel the same way. Just because you or I may not care whether some theoretical buyer is from Ireland or Indonesia (largest Muslim country in the world), it doesn't mean everyone is like that. Me, I would hate them all equally unless they turned out to be the second coming of the OLC.

Selling the domestic parks to anyone would be a PR disaster. Selling to a foreigner would be worse, severity depending upon which part of the world they were from. Here's my partial list, from best received to worst received:

1. Canada
2. Australia
3. Western Europe
4. Central Europe
5. Brazil
6. Japan
7. Rest of South America
8. Eastern Europe
9. Sub-Saharan Africa
10. Central America
11. Northern Africa
12. Indonesia
13. Russia
14. Middle East
15. China

 

[Captain Chaos]

Ah, yes, the old, reliable ad hominem attack. There was a time when people realized and the rules of debate demanded that calling names and using pejorative words did not assure victory in an argument. No longer, it seems.

The Saudis epitmoze the phrase, "With friends like that, who needs enemies?" and at a time when they, their "government" (read, "royalty") are preventing a major U.S. Airline from allowing Jews from flying on and others from carrying onboard unapproved religious books and other items on its branch carrier, the question of tolerance should be pointed in the other direction, I think.

If Walt Disney World represents anything in principle, it embodies something about the dreams of America and the diversity and unity of its people (and that of the world community, especially in Epcot). Saudi Arabian society, in it's treatment of women, minorities and those of religious devotion other than the official state sect, hardly fits that vision.

Count me among those that would have serious reservations about further lining the pockets of a Saudi prince by frequenting an American cultural icon owned by a person wed to, if not explicitly responsible for a social perspective antithetical to American ideals and possibly overtly inimical toward freedom generally.

Then i suggest you stop going to Disney World... or buying Disney DVDs... or going to see Disney movies... Since he is already a Disney shareholder... And buying Disney products, thus increasing the share price lines his pockets...

 

[Zummi Gummi]

The poster didn't have a problem with the Prince's nationality or his politics. It was his race he didn't like. The same problem comes up all the time in debates about terrorism. "Radical Islam" is not the same as "Islam," and neither are the same as "Arab." If that poster had said he had reservations about the sociopolitical nature of Saudi society, then I don't think anyone would have had a problem with it, but that's not what he said. His problem was with the fact that he was an Arab.

Thank you. There was a reason I didn't say anything earlier in the thread, when people were seriously and legitimately discussing the PR and political ramifications of such a (relatively unlikely, but that's besides the point) sale.

My objection is with the phrase, "some middle eastern foreign dude" which implies that the poster does not care who he is, what he represents, or how legitimate (or illegitimate) his holdings might be. The posters' sole objection is that he's from a certain region of the world.

But now we're veering way off track.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

The Disney Company has absolutely nothing to do with the Disney family anymore,[/I]

Yes, but as of right now, we can still pretend. A drastic move like the 80's takeover, the 00's buyout, or selling off the parks threatens to shatter that illusion.

 

[docandsix]

Maybe you're right...

Then i suggest you stop going to Disney World... or buying Disney DVDs... or going to see Disney movies... Since he is already a Disney shareholder... And buying Disney products, thus increasing the share price lines his pockets...

I do try to discriminate regarding where I make my investments, being as sure as I can that I'm not supporting a company (individual, nation, ideology, whatever) that violates principles or ideals important to me. But that can be taken only so far, practically. My preference, for instance, is to buy items "made in the U.S.A.," but try as I might, I don't believe I'd be able to find a computer to type this message to you without purchasing hardware made in China. So be it.

However, there is in my mind a distinction between supporting a company owned partially by someone to whose character, morals, or behavior I oppose (every publicly held company will include innumerable examples) and supporting a company owned wholly by such an entity. That's what I'm imagining in the scenario (however unrealistic) that has been suggested in this thread.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I do try to discriminate regarding where I make my investments, being as sure as I can that I'm not supporting a company (individual, nation, ideology, whatever) that violates principles or ideals important to me. But that can be taken only so far, practically. My preference, for instance, is to buy items "made in the U.S.A.," but try as I might, I don't believe I'd be able to find a computer to type this message to you without purchasing hardware made in China. So be it.

However, there is in my mind a distinction between supporting a company owned partially by someone to whose character, morals, or behavior I oppose (every publicly held company will include innumerable examples) and supporting a company owned wholly by such an entity. That's what I'm imaging in the scenario (however unrealistic) that has been suggested in this thread.

Ahhh gotcha... your first post didn't come off this way... Now I understand where ya come from...

 

[Pioneer Hall]

ON TOPIC: I really think that the more significant tidbit here is not the Prince, but rather the entire board of directors.

But, like I questioned earlier...is the board actually there? From what I can gather there is only one member of the BoD there and that is Iger. Everything else we have heard has been purely speculation. Staggs isn't a board member and it doesn't seem crazy to me that the two of them might make a site visit for one reason or another together. Perhaps they decided to jetpool to save some money on gas.

I think that people are still just reading way too much into this. There are so many reasons that they could be meeting that it kind of amazes me that this rumor has taken off the way it has.

 

[TalkingHead]

But, like I questioned earlier...is the board actually there? From what I can gather there is only one member of the BoD there and that is Iger. Everything else we have heard has been purely speculation. Staggs isn't a board member and it doesn't seem crazy to me that the two of them might make a site visit for one reason or another together. Perhaps they decided to jetpool to save some money on gas.

I think that people are still just reading way too much into this. There are so many reasons that they could be meeting that it kind of amazes me that this rumor has taken off the way it has.

Didn't someone (Lee, maybe?) say that the BoD had been sequestered on a floor at the Boardwalk this week?

EDIT:

Here's what Lee said in the "Bob Iger spotted in DAK" thread...

But the real story is, who else was at the resort this week, and why?
Iger was there. Staggs was there. And...sequestered in a sealed off floor at the Boardwalk...the Board of Directors of the WDC.

Oh...and a certain Saudi Prince. The one who already owns a big chunk of DLP.

This story isn't over. It may get much bigger in the coming days.

 

[devoy1701]

Selling Walt Disney World to a foriegn company makes me ill....do not care which country or whatever... the idea of it is just plain sickening. Notice the ownership deals in France, Japan, and China all have the host country's business ownership % at greater than 50% in every case.... Only it seems in the USA would we seem to sell our Mom's house for a buck.

That being said I do not imagine the Wald Disney Company would ever do this.... would be a collassal slap in the face of the Disney family (Walt, Roy, etc)

In countries like China that's the only way you can do business...I know it's that way in the UAE as well...majority ownership has to be held the a citizen/government in order to do business in tha country. And China's gov't is home to more greed and corroption than our own!

The Disney Company has absolutely nothing to do with the Disney family anymore, they are just "there" in name only, and if slapping the face of the Disney family can net the Disney Company more money for shareholders, I assure you every cast member would be sporting Mickey gloves to do the task.

If some outside investor offered the Disney Company a trillion dollars for the Disney World resort and all the property around it, Disney would take that without thinking about it, and make a new Pirates movie.

Jimmy Thick-Never underestimate corporate greed...

This is the unfortunate truth...there is nothing Disney aboud the Disney Company anymore. It's shame too. Roy should have worked with Shamrock holdings and done their best to take the company (all or part) of it Private back in the 80s. I don't think there isn't a thing that the company wouldn't sell off if the price was right.

 

[Computer Magic]

Didn't someone (Lee, maybe?) say that the BoD had been sequestered on a floor at the Boardwalk this week?

EDIT:

Here's what Lee said in the "Bob Iger spotted in DAK" thread...

But the real story is, who else was at the resort this week, and why?
Iger was there. Staggs was there. And...sequestered in a sealed off floor at the Boardwalk...the Board of Directors of the WDC.

Oh...and a certain Saudi Prince. The one who already owns a big chunk of DLP.

This story isn't over. It may get much bigger in the coming days.

You are correct.

Confirmed by Steve and Lee that the BOD was at WDW.

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showpost.php?p=4641596&postcount=244

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee
Often times yes. Sadly this may turn out not to be one of them...in a way.


Yes. True.
But the real story is, who else was at the resort this week, and why?
Iger was there. Staggs was there. And...sequestered in a sealed off floor at the Boardwalk...the Board of Directors of the WDC.

Oh...and a certain Saudi Prince. The one who already owns a big chunk of DLP.
This story isn't over. It may get much bigger in the coming days.

Posted by Steve: I understand that the board were brought in by Iger and Staggs to take a look at some of the new additions at WDW and where they may be expanded. For example, the entire board did the Wild Africa Trek. They do have these get togethers out in the field every now and then.

Given the Prince's close links to Disney and large ownership chunk of DLP, it isn't surprising to see him being involved - if in fact he was there.

I really think it's a big stretch to link that to a sale of the parks. I really don't see it happening. Not a chance in my opinion.

 

[Admiral01]

Ah, yes, the old, reliable ad hominem attack. There was a time when people realized and the rules of debate demanded that calling names and using pejorative words did not assure victory in an argument. No longer, it seems.

The Saudis epitmoze the phrase, "With friends like that, who needs enemies?" and at a time when they, their "government" (read, "royalty") are preventing a major U.S. Airline from allowing Jews from flying on and others from carrying onboard unapproved religious books and other items on its branch carrier, the question of tolerance should be pointed in the other direction, I think.

If Walt Disney World represents anything in principle, it embodies something about the dreams of America and the diversity and unity of its people (and that of the world community, especially in Epcot). Saudi Arabian society, in its treatment of women, minorities and those of religious devotion other than the official state sect, hardly fits that vision.

Count me among those that would have serious reservations about further lining the pockets of a Saudi prince by frequenting an American cultural icon owned by a person wed to, if not explicitly responsible for a social perspective antithetical to American ideals and possibly overtly inimical toward freedom generally.

OK, I need to call this one out. Delta, the airline you refer to which has just begin code-sharing service with Saudi Arabian Airlines, will NOT be banning anyone from flying. The Rabbi who wrote the article has retracted his claim, since it was totally outrageously wrong to begin with. I respect other's opinions, but others are not allowed to change the facts, as you are trying to do.

There are always discussions that can be had about the Saudi Arabian treatment of women, their kingdom, etc. But, the "preventing a major U.S. Airline from allowing Jews from flying" was totally mush to begin with, and you should check facts before regurgitating falsehoods.

If someone else has already posted a rebuttal like this, I apologize for repeating it. Lets just keep the facts straight, because these sort of lies really hurt progress in the world.

 

[stitch2008]

But, like I questioned earlier...is the board actually there? From what I can gather there is only one member of the BoD there and that is Iger. Everything else we have heard has been purely speculation. Staggs isn't a board member and it doesn't seem crazy to me that the two of them might make a site visit for one reason or another together. Perhaps they decided to jetpool to save some money on gas.

I think that people are still just reading way too much into this. There are so many reasons that they could be meeting that it kind of amazes me that this rumor has taken off the way it has.

Exactly. Theres a thousand things the board could be doing in WDW. We all need to chill and relax.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I suppose another way to look at it is would it benefit the prince enough to justify putting so much money on the line?

He put a good chunk into Euro Disney SCA, essentially saving the Resort and continues to own 10%, second only to The Walt Disney Company's 39.8%.
http://corporate.disneylandparis.co...-share/other-share-information.xhtml#contentj

Selling Walt Disney World to a foriegn company makes me ill....

Who necessarily said a foreign company would buy Walt Disney Parks & Resorts?

That being said I do not imagine the Wald Disney Company would ever do this.... would be a collassal slap in the face of the Disney family (Walt, Roy, etc)

When Disneyland opened it was a seperate entity with three stockholders: Walt Disney Productions (the studio), WED Enterprises (Walt Disney) and the American Broadcasting Company.

Selling the domestic parks to anyone would be a PR disaster.

Why? Nobody bats an eye at the international parks being owned by others.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Didn't someone (Lee, maybe?) say that the BoD had been sequestered on a floor at the Boardwalk this week?

EDIT:

Here's what Lee said in the "Bob Iger spotted in DAK" thread...

But the real story is, who else was at the resort this week, and why?
Iger was there. Staggs was there. And...sequestered in a sealed off floor at the Boardwalk...the Board of Directors of the WDC.

Oh...and a certain Saudi Prince. The one who already owns a big chunk of DLP.

This story isn't over. It may get much bigger in the coming days.

Thanks. I gave up on the other thread once it was nothing more than just jokes. Even with them all their I still think that talk of a sale is still nothing more than a lot of crazy speculation. My guess is that there are a lot of other things that they can talk about and why not use the property they have to do it. You don't need a boardroom in Burbank to talk business.

 

[stitch2008]

Thanks. I gave up on the other thread once it was nothing more than just jokes. Even with them all their I still think that talk of a sale is still nothing more than a lot of crazy speculation. My guess is that there are a lot of other things that they can talk about and why not use the property they have to do it. You don't need a boardroom in Burbank to talk business.

Take a look at this from Steve. It was posted Computer Magic Above.

I understand that the board were brought in by Iger and Staggs to take a look at some of the new additions at WDW and where they may be expanded. For example, the entire board did the Wild Africa Trek. They do have these get togethers out in the field every now and then.Given the Prince's close links to Disney and large ownership chunk of DLP, it isn't surprising to see him being involved - if in fact he was there.

I really think it's a big stretch to link that to a sale of the parks. I really don't see it happening. Not a chance in my opinion.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Take a look at this from Steve. It was posted Computer Magic Above.

I saw that in the previous post...thanks. As you can tell, I am in agreement with Steve on this.

 

[Computer Magic]

I have video of Iger greeting Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal as he entered Adventureland at MK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEryAoLfnAA

 

[docandsix]

Mea Cupla...

I respect other's opinions, but others are not allowed to change the facts, as you are trying to do.

There are always discussions that can be had about the Saudi Arabian treatment of women, their kingdom, etc. But, the "preventing a major U.S. Airline from allowing Jews from flying" was totally mush to begin with, and you should check facts before regurgitating falsehoods.

The story was widely reported through more than one reputable news outlet, though apparently the accusation arose from only one source. I stand corrected. The dismissal of that one example, however, does not invalidate the larger argument, as you acknowledged, whether or not you agree.

I have edited my original post to reflect your correction.

 

[JimboJones123]

Good fact finding on the profitability, so I will take a step back on that. I still say there is no way this is happening though for any number of reasons, many of which are posted by other people on this thread.
Also didnt Disney re-aquire the Disney store?? I havent seen any great improvements in the store of the merchandise in the store near me, but that is not to say it wont be happening.
Have a great day!!! Marie

The only changes I have seen in the past 2 years or so are higher prices on apperal with lower quality.