Oh, if only....

[Clever Name]

I've read probably most of the books that have come out about Walt's life and there are some striking negative views of him. Even within some of the interviews with those who worked with him there are some rough spots detailed. I hope it's a movie that will portray him in a fair light and people realize that tough times can sometimes affect personalities and dictate tough decisions.

Indeed, Walt was not the kind and fatherly figure that the Disney public relations machine created. He was a very hard nosed businessman and he took advantage of the shareholders to expand his own personal wealth. He had no real friends because no one liked him very much and his ethical standards were questionable.

Any movie done by the Disney studio about Walt would be pure fiction. To be fair, none of the other studio heads during Walt’s era were angels either. :wave:

 

[Magenta Panther]

Indeed, Walt was not the kind and fatherly figure that the Disney public relations machine created. He was a very hard nosed businessman and he took advantage of the shareholders to expand his own personal wealth. He had no real friends because no one liked him very much and his ethical standards were questionable.

Any movie done by the Disney studio about Walt would be pure fiction. To be fair, none of the other studio heads during Walt’s era were angels either. :wave:

Just about every single word of the above is pure bull. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the punctuation.

Seriously, all of the above has been debunked over and over. Walt was not a "hard-nosed businessman". Maybe you're thinking of his brother, who handled the company's finances. He did not "take advantage" of the shareholders - he barely paid any attention to them. He did not become anything like wealthy until very late in life, and even then, he was a pauper by Michael Eisner/Robert Iger standards. As for his ethics...seriously? You're dumping on the ethics of a man who gave his employees raises before giving himself one? A man who drove his kids to school and to church and had only one wife and never cheated on her? Do you write for Family Guy or something? You and I have faced off before over this issue, and I don't intend to get into a flame war with you, but I'm not going to stand by and watch someone spread the kind of BS about Walt that far too many kids today believe (thanks in part to the scurrilous Mr. McFarlane). I'm surprised you didn't use the "anti-Semite" card; however did you manage to resist that?

 

[Clever Name]

Just about every single word of the above is pure bull. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the punctuation.

Seriously, all of the above has been debunked over and over. Walt was not a "hard-nosed businessman".

Far from being debunked, Walt’s unethical business practices are well documented. Roy and Walt got into a major disagreement about WED Enterprises because Roy feared (and rightly so) that the shareholders would sue Walt. For more information read chapter 24 of Bob Thomas’ book, Building a Company: Roy O.Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire (Hyperion, 1998). The bottom line is that Walt defrauded the shareholders for many years. Roy saved Walt from a lawsuit that would have ruined both of them. :wave:

 

[Magenta Panther]

Far from being debunked, Walt’s unethical business practices are well documented. Roy and Walt got into a major disagreement about WED Enterprises because Roy feared (and rightly so) that the shareholders would sue Walt. For more information read chapter 24 of Bob Thomas’ book, Building a Company: Roy O.Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire (Hyperion, 1998). The bottom line is that Walt defrauded the shareholders for many years. Roy saved Walt from a lawsuit that would have ruined both of them. :wave:

Oh, THAT story. FYI, Walt didn't do what he did to deliberately defraud shareholders. He looked at WED as a place where he could do what he wanted, where he called the shots, a throwback to the old Hyperion days. Here's a description of the Walt/Roy feud over WED from startedbyamouse.com:

Seeking to place fewer burdens on the studio’s finances, Walt established a separate organization called WED (for "Walter Elias Disney") in 1953 to create and build attractions for Disneyland and then sell to Walt Disney Productions at cost plus overhead. WED would also operate the railroad (and later the monorail) and receive a 10 percent cut of all merchandising. Roy reluctantly agreed to the WED concept. To avoid any potential controversy with shareholders, he sought approval for Walt’s WED contract only from the Board of Directors. But as Walt Disney Productions expanded throughout the 1950s, so too did Roy’s fears that a shareholder or group of shareholders might sue the company over the separate contract. In the early 1960s Roy attempted to speak with Walt on the matter, resulting in a heated feud that lasted for months. Eventually, the deep trust and love between the brothers won out and an agreement was reached where the studio would buy WED and give Walt a 10-year extension on ownership of the trains and monorails, as well as continued royalties. Walt’s company became Retlaw. WED Enterprises would change its name to Walt Disney Imagineering in the 1980s. An in-depth chronicle of Walt and Roy’s feud can be found in Chapter 24 of Bob Thomas’ excellent book, Building a Company: Roy O.Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire (Hyperion, 1998).

OBVIOUSLY, Walt's plan wasn't to screw over shareholders. His mistakes with WED derived from the fact that he WASN'T a "hard-nosed businessman". He was no longer in full control of his own studio, and he saw WED as a way to get around that. Period. He didn't do what he did to get rich. He wanted control of new projects without having to go to stockholders for permission or attend stockholder meetings (something he hated).

Here are a few more facts about the fued, taken from Disney History Institute.com:


It was well known throughout the Studio that the two would regularly go at it, often loudly and in public. ________ Morrow, who served as general counsel for the company, remembered that despite the bitter arguments, “the love between the two brothers never diminished in the slightest, and I heard that from each of them individually. People who tried to take advantage of [the situation] and tried to play off one against the other faced trouble.

“It was a general conflict between who was running the company and who was going to prevail: Walt and the creative side or Roy and the administrative side. [Walt and Roy] just weren’t on track together, although each of them recognized the genius of the other one and had great respect for it.”

This on-again-off-again feud between the brothers turned disastrous in the early sixties when the two camps began negotiations regarding the sale of Walt’s company WED and its holdings (Monorail, Train, Walt’s name, et al.) to Walt Disney Productions. The tenor of the discussions went quickly downhill, with both sides adding more lawyers to the mix. The incident became so contentious that at one point Walt’s counsel threatened to Roy that he would just have to take Walt to another studio (done so by suggesting the hiring of an agent for Walt). At that point, the situation had almost slipped into an irrecoverable position, and easily the lowest point ever in the lives of the two siblings.

This story is now oft told and retold in Disney history–the time the relationship had soured to where the two brothers would not even talk to each other, and only communicated via their representatives. Enter the famous peace pipe.

If you have not heard the legendary story, you are one of the few. Walt, feeling that the situation had gone too far, decided to visit Roy on his sixty-eighth Birthday, June 21, 1961. Walt went down one flight of stairs to his brother’s office with peace pipe in hand (literally, not figuratively – Walt had an actual Native American peace pipe to give to his brother as a birthday present). Walt suggested a truce to be solemnized by both through the smoking of the pipe of peace. Roy obliged, and just as quickly as the fight had flared up, it ended, and the two were on speaking terms again. (It should also be noted, that during this contentious time, and prior to Walt’s offering, Roy had also started to soften towards his brother. He even defended his brother to the Studio negotiators, stating: “You seem to forget how important Walt Disney has been to you and your lives. None of us would be here in these offices if it hadn’t been for Walt. ... He deserves better treatment than what’s being shown here.”)

When Walt returned to his office, he sent off the following note to his brother: “June 24, 1961. Dear Roy - It is wonderful to smoke the Pipe of Peace with you again – the clouds that rise are very beautiful. I think, between us over the years, we have accomplished something – there was a time when we couldn’t borrow a Thousand Dollars and now I understand we owe Twenty-four Million? But in all sincerity, Happy Birthday, and many more - and – I love you, [Signed] Walt Mr. Roy O. Disney, 500 So. Buena Vista St., Burbank, California WDV [Dolores Vought] P.S. I can assure you that Lilly subscribes to the above and wants to join me in wishing you many, many more Happy Birthdays to come. P.P. S. Maybe we can get together in Paris – we’ll be there from Sunday, June 25th thru Wednesday the 28th. Walt.”

So, bottom line: Walt wasn't an unethical man. He respected money, but was no hard-nosed business man out to screw over stockholders. You might get some of your facts right about the feud but you mis-characterize the principles and the situation. And it's a bit silly for you to keep doing that when there are plenty of sources out there that contradict you. Just what is your motivation for coming in here and bad-mouthing Walt?

 

[Clever Name]

So, bottom line: Walt wasn't an unethical man.

You haven’t even described what was at issue concerning the disagreement between Walt and Roy. The real issue was Walt using his position as head of the studio (Walt Disney Productions) to hire the best talent for his private company (WED). He would cull through the studio personnel and pick the best people and then tell them, “I want you to work for me”. He would hire them at WED and increase their salary.

He then charged back all the expenses to the studio (i.e. the shareholders) on a cost plus overhead basis. WED was always the sole contractor on projects. No bids were ever solicited for projects and Walt was in control of the studio and he owned the sole contractor.

Who picked the contractor to do the work? It was a very clever way to do business, not to mention unethical. Roy feared that the shareholders would discover Walt's shell game and insisted that Walt end the practice before they got sued.

Walt didn't want to give up such a sweet deal but realized that a shareholder lawsuit might kill the golden goose. He agreed to sell WED to the studio and then created RETLAW. Roy put some very tight controls on RETLAW to make sure Walt stayed within proper ethical bounds. :wave:

 

[Magenta Panther]

You haven’t even described what was at issue concerning the disagreement between Walt and Roy. The real issue was Walt using his position as head of the studio (Walt Disney Productions) to hire the best talent for his private company (WED). He would cull through the studio personnel and pick the best people and then tell them, “I want you to work for me”. He would hire them at WED and increase their salary.

He then charged back all the expenses to the studio (i.e. the shareholders) on a cost plus overhead basis. WED was always the sole contractor on projects. No bids were ever solicited for projects and Walt was in control of the studio and he owned the sole contractor.

Who picked the contractor to do the work? It was a very clever way to do business, not to mention unethical. Roy feared that the shareholders would discover Walt's shell game and insisted that Walt end the practice before they got sued.

Walt didn't want to give up such a sweet deal but realized that a shareholder lawsuit might kill the golden goose. He agreed to sell WED to the studio and then created RETLAW. Roy put some very tight controls on RETLAW to make sure Walt stayed within proper ethical bounds. :wave:

The "sweet deal" to Walt was being able to control things and create things again. At the time of the dispute, Walt wasn't really in control of Walt Disney Productions. He wasn't exactly a figurehead, but he didn't have the creative freedom he once enjoyed. WED, through its work on Disneyland, gave him that freedom again. THAT'S what he was after. Maybe he went about it the wrong way (at least in terms of the shareholders), but you make it sound like he did what he did in order to rake in huge gobs of cash for his personal profit. That is simply not true. WED was all about developing Disneyland. Walt didn't get why he couldn't do things his way and got stubborn about it, and that's where the "ethical" issues arose. Of course, Roy was perfectly in the right to insist that the structure of WED had to change, and Walt eventually realized that, and the structure did change and Walt and Roy made up and the crisis ended. But the picture you're trying to paint of Walt as an evil greedy businessman is totally false, and there are plenty of co-worker, family and friend testimonials to counter it. :wave:

 

[Tom]

The "sweet deal" to Walt was being able to control things and create things again. At the time of the dispute, Walt wasn't really in control of Walt Disney Productions. He wasn't exactly a figurehead, but he didn't have the creative freedom he once enjoyed. WED, through its work on Disneyland, gave him that freedom again. THAT'S what he was after. Maybe he went about it the wrong way (at least in terms of the shareholders), but you make it sound like he did what he did in order to rake in huge gobs of cash for his personal profit. That is simply not true. WED was all about developing Disneyland. Walt didn't get why he couldn't do things his way and got stubborn about it, and that's where the "ethical" issues arose. Of course, Roy was perfectly in the right to insist that the structure of WED had to change, and Walt eventually realized that, and the structure did change and Walt and Roy made up and the crisis ended. But the picture you're trying to paint of Walt as an evil greedy businessman is totally false, and there are plenty of co-worker, family and friend testimonials to counter it. :wave:

You're not going to win the battle. There are plenty of people who will always want to think of Walt as being an unethical, cut-throat maniac. I'm not one of those people.

He was a perfectionist and a control freak. All he wanted to do was be the best, and always improve. Never was his intention to MAKE money, but to do what he wanted to do without LOSING any more money than he did anyway. Anytime Walt scored a small profit, he'd spend it - while Roy tried to save it.

If it weren't for Walt's "unethical" breakaway from the company he started and was essentially forced to go public with, we wouldn't have any reason for this internet forum to exist, because there would be no Disneyland or WDW...or at least not what we have today. Disneyland would be the crappy "Coney Island" style park that was first conceived.

Walt wasn't a corporate guy. He was a down-to-earth man who had no interest in big business, stocks, banks, or financial statements. He was a creative genius and I'm so happy that he did what he did. I just wish there was a single breathing soul in the Walt Disney Company that gave even a fraction of a crap that Walt did about the public and their enjoyment....rather than if the stockholders are doing well.

 

[Clever Name]

Of course, Roy was perfectly in the right to insist that the structure of WED had to change, and Walt eventually realized that, and the structure did change and Walt and Roy made up and the crisis ended. But the picture you're trying to paint of Walt as an evil greedy businessman is totally false, and there are plenty of co-worker, family and friend testimonials to counter it. :wave:

The structure of WED changed because Walt was forced to sell it to the studio in January, 1953.

The facts of the matter are clear. WED Enterprises was in existence for 12 years from December, 1952 until January, 1965 and this company was solely owned by Walt Disney. This company is how Walt made his fortune. The company was sold to the studio (Walt Disney Productions) by Walt for fear that the studio shareholders would sue to recover vast sums of money from WED.

Roy knew that if a lawsuit was filed the studio shareholders would prevail and ruin Walt financially. Of greater concern was tarnishing Walt’s trusted reputation because that would directly impact the fortunes of the studio. The studio had spent many years polishing Walt’s persona on television and in the press. During the period of the possible lawsuit (1963, 1964) the television anthology, Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color was a very popular show on the NBC television network. Walt regularly appeared as the host of the show.

There is no doubt that the shareholders would have won had they filed the lawsuit. The major concern was that in the mind of the public Walt was the studio. He stood for everything that was good and honest. If it was publicly known that Walt was a cheat and had defrauded the shareholders, then the studio itself would suffer. A settlement was reached to avoid the adverse publicity of publicly going after Walt in a court of law. Even after the settlement some shareholders considered a second lawsuit but that was put to rest with Walt’s sudden and unexpected death in 1966.

The operation of WED was rather simple. Walt would cull through the employees on the studio payroll and hire the best and the brightest for WED. Walt offered various incentives including higher pay for employees to leave the studio and come to work for WED. Walt was in charge of all studio production so he would assign “projects” to the WED staff for completion. At the end of the project, Walt would bill the studio for his costs plus all overhead costs. Of course, when the shareholders found out that they were paying anywhere from 35% to 60% more money to have these projects done, they wanted their money back.

I don’t consider Walt to be evil. He was a product of his time and he got away with these financial shenanigans because Roy was not keeping Walt under close scrutiny. Roy originally suggested to Walt that he (Walt) create WED. Roy’s idea was that this private company would properly and legally segregate Walt’s private assets from the publically owned (shareholder) company. In short order Walt expanded WED beyond anything Roy had envisioned.

Roy should have put the hammer down on Walt concerning WED in the early days. Roy had always been very protective of his little brother and he stood by and let Walt run WED even when studio interests were compromised or subverted by WED. I think that Roy hoped that he could continue to cover for Walt’s fiscal improprieties until they both retired. After some time it became apparent to Roy that for the sake of all concerned (Walt, the studio, WED, the shareholders, Roy, the Disney family and the Disney legacy) that this issue needed to be settled in private so they could sweep the fraud under the rug as much as possible.

Had a lawsuit gone forward I think its safe to say that the Disney name would today be thought of as synonymous with the name Ponzi. :wave:

 

[Magenta Panther]

The structure of WED changed because Walt was forced to sell it to the studio in January, 1953.

The facts of the matter are clear. WED Enterprises was in existence for 12 years from December, 1952 until January, 1965 and this company was solely owned by Walt Disney. This company is how Walt made his fortune. The company was sold to the studio (Walt Disney Productions) by Walt for fear that the studio shareholders would sue to recover vast sums of money from WED.

Roy knew that if a lawsuit was filed the studio shareholders would prevail and ruin Walt financially. Of greater concern was tarnishing Walt’s trusted reputation because that would directly impact the fortunes of the studio. The studio had spent many years polishing Walt’s persona on television and in the press. During the period of the possible lawsuit (1963, 1964) the television anthology, Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color was a very popular show on the NBC television network. Walt regularly appeared as the host of the show.

There is no doubt that the shareholders would have won had they filed the lawsuit. The major concern was that in the mind of the public Walt was the studio. He stood for everything that was good and honest. If it was publicly known that Walt was a cheat and had defrauded the shareholders, then the studio itself would suffer. A settlement was reached to avoid the adverse publicity of publicly going after Walt in a court of law. Even after the settlement some shareholders considered a second lawsuit but that was put to rest with Walt’s sudden and unexpected death in 1966.

The operation of WED was rather simple. Walt would cull through the employees on the studio payroll and hire the best and the brightest for WED. Walt offered various incentives including higher pay for employees to leave the studio and come to work for WED. Walt was in charge of all studio production so he would assign “projects” to the WED staff for completion. At the end of the project, Walt would bill the studio for his costs plus all overhead costs. Of course, when the shareholders found out that they were paying anywhere from 35% to 60% more money to have these projects done, they wanted their money back.

I don’t consider Walt to be evil. He was a product of his time and he got away with these financial shenanigans because Roy was not keeping Walt under close scrutiny. Roy originally suggested to Walt that he (Walt) create WED. Roy’s idea was that this private company would properly and legally segregate Walt’s private assets from the publically owned (shareholder) company. In short order Walt expanded WED beyond anything Roy had envisioned.

Roy should have put the hammer down on Walt concerning WED in the early days. Roy had always been very protective of his little brother and he stood by and let Walt run WED even when studio interests were compromised or subverted by WED. I think that Roy hoped that he could continue to cover for Walt’s fiscal improprieties until they both retired. After some time it became apparent to Roy that for the sake of all concerned (Walt, the studio, WED, the shareholders, Roy, the Disney family and the Disney legacy) that this issue needed to be settled in private so they could sweep the fraud under the rug as much as possible.

Had a lawsuit gone forward I think its safe to say that the Disney name would today be thought of as synonymous with the name Ponzi. :wave:

You still implied that Walt created WED for the sole purpose of lining his pockets, which is BS. He created it for Disneyland, and as EdwardTC pointed out (and has been pointed out by Disney biographers and historians as well) if it weren't for WED, Disneyland wouldn't have been the success it was, and THAT did the stockholders a hell of a lot of good, because that park helped give the studio the kind of fiscal security it had never enjoyed before. Again, you get some of the facts right, but you spin them into a very negative, untrue picture of the kind of man Walt was. And THAT'S what I object to, because that picture is patently untrue and is the sort of nonsense Bob Thomas referred to as "revisionist history" in his first book about Walt. I'm not saying that what Walt did with WED in regards to stockholders wasn't improper. But that hardly makes him an unethical, greedy hard-nosed businessman, who didn't have any friends and all that rot. He made a mistake and fought Roy over WED for creative, not financial, reasons. You have every right to point out that mistake and criticize Walt for it, but NOT to paint him as some sort of greedy phony overlord. I will always dispute you if you do, so that others won't read such stuff and assume it's true. We've already got a generation of kids growing up thinking Walt was an anti-Semite, thanks to jerks like Seth McFarlane. Walt's daughter Diane built that museum in California to fight stuff like that. Don't add to the lie!

 

[Magenta Panther]

You're not going to win the battle. There are plenty of people who will always want to think of Walt as being an unethical, cut-throat maniac. I'm not one of those people.

He was a perfectionist and a control freak. All he wanted to do was be the best, and always improve. Never was his intention to MAKE money, but to do what he wanted to do without LOSING any more money than he did anyway. Anytime Walt scored a small profit, he'd spend it - while Roy tried to save it.

If it weren't for Walt's "unethical" breakaway from the company he started and was essentially forced to go public with, we wouldn't have any reason for this internet forum to exist, because there would be no Disneyland or WDW...or at least not what we have today. Disneyland would be the crappy "Coney Island" style park that was first conceived.

Walt wasn't a corporate guy. He was a down-to-earth man who had no interest in big business, stocks, banks, or financial statements. He was a creative genius and I'm so happy that he did what he did. I just wish there was a single breathing soul in the Walt Disney Company that gave even a fraction of a crap that Walt did about the public and their enjoyment....rather than if the stockholders are doing well.

Brother, do I agree with you! I wish that with all my heart. Thanks for the insightful comment!

 

[Clever Name]

You still implied that Walt created WED for the sole purpose of lining his pockets, which is BS. He created it for Disneyland, and as EdwardTC pointed out (and has been pointed out by Disney biographers and historians as well) if it weren't for WED, Disneyland wouldn't have been the success it was, and THAT did the stockholders a hell of a lot of good, because that park helped give the studio the kind of fiscal security it had never enjoyed before. Again, you get some of the facts right, but you spin them into a very negative, untrue picture of the kind of man Walt was. And THAT'S what I object to, because that picture is patently untrue and is the sort of nonsense Bob Thomas referred to as "revisionist history" in his first book about Walt. I'm not saying that what Walt did with WED in regards to stockholders wasn't improper. But that hardly makes him an unethical, greedy hard-nosed businessman, who didn't have any friends and all that rot. He made a mistake and fought Roy over WED for creative, not financial, reasons. You have every right to point out that mistake and criticize Walt for it, but NOT to paint him as some sort of greedy phony overlord. I will always dispute you if you do, so that others won't read such stuff and assume it's true. We've already got a generation of kids growing up thinking Walt was an anti-Semite, thanks to jerks like Seth McFarlane. Walt's daughter Diane built that museum in California to fight stuff like that. Don't add to the lie!

The entire WED fiasco revolved around Walt’s responsibilities as head of the studio. As head of Walt Disney Productions, Walt had s fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. He repeatedly violated that responsibility by using WED as the sole contractor for studio related business. He personally profited from this arrangement at the direct expense of shareholders.

As I had previously explained, at Roy’s urging, Walt agreed to sell WED to Walt Disney Productions. Both Roy and Walt knew that if a lawsuit was filed, Walt’s hand would clearly be caught in the cookie jar and it would financially ruin them and the entire company. Also remember that when all this was taking place, Walt Disney Productions was buying huge land tracts in Florida in preparation for WDW. They didn’t need any adverse publicity to screw up the deal. All parties had a vested interest in settling this matter quickly and quietly as possible.

If you think the sale of WED to Walt Disney Productions was purely a creative conflict, let me remind you that Walt immediately created Retlaw Enterprises in February, 1965. Retlaw took care of those items that Walt still retained after the WED sale such as the Disneyland Railroad and Monorail as well as the apartment over the firehouse and a few other Disneyland attractions. Retlaw also retained the rights to the Walt Disney name as well as his likeness and these were licensed to the studio. Make no mistake, it was all about money and Walt lost a good deal of his wealth as a result. :wave:

 

[Magenta Panther]

The entire WED fiasco revolved around Walt’s responsibilities as head of the studio. As head of Walt Disney Productions, Walt had s fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. He repeatedly violated that responsibility by using WED as the sole contractor for studio related business. He personally profited from this arrangement at the direct expense of shareholders.

As I had previously explained, at Roy’s urging, Walt agreed to sell WED to Walt Disney Productions. Both Roy and Walt knew that if a lawsuit was filed, Walt’s hand would clearly be caught in the cookie jar and it would financially ruin them and the entire company. Also remember that when all this was taking place, Walt Disney Productions was buying huge land tracts in Florida in preparation for WDW. They didn’t need any adverse publicity to screw up the deal. All parties had a vested interest in settling this matter quickly and quietly as possible.

If you think the sale of WED to Walt Disney Productions was purely a creative conflict, let me remind you that Walt immediately created Retlaw Enterprises in February, 1965. Retlaw took care of those items that Walt still retained after the WED sale such as the Disneyland Railroad and Monorail as well as the apartment over the firehouse and a few other Disneyland attractions. Retlaw also retained the rights to the Walt Disney name as well as his likeness and these were licensed to the studio. Make no mistake, it was all about money and Walt lost a good deal of his wealth as a result. :wave:

I've done a bit more digging into my Disney books and here is the what the situation was: WED was created to build Disneyland. Walt wanted that because he no longer actually controlled his own company. Operational decision-making was in the hands of Roy and the board of directors, who answered to the stockholders, not to Walt. Walt resented that (and frankly, pragmatic or not, I sympathize with that view) and felt it wasn't fair. He also felt it wasn't fair that his good name was being used by Walt Disney Productions to enrich those stockholders and he, Walt Disney, wasn't getting anything out of it. (At this point, I agree with you - money was one of the motivations for Walt's actions. But there's a difference between someone being greedy and someone wanting fair compensation). Walt demanded that, since he was essentially no longer running Walt Disney Productions, that the company should pay him a licensing fee for the right to use his name. Roy took issue with that, and the feud was on.

Here's a direct quote from the book "How To Be Like Walt", by Pat Williams, about the feud: "Walt insisted that he only sought what was fair, after years of sacrifice. Roy argued that the arrangement Walt wanted would provoke a stockholder revolt. Walt's demands might be fair, but they gave an appearance of conflict of interest - a cozy deal for Walt that would rob stockholders of return on investment. The faintest whiff of impropriety could open the door to costly litigation".

Again, my issue with you is that you deliberately take what happened and try to use it to paint Walt as a greedy unethical scumbag, when that is patently not true. The above paragraph puts the situation into much more truthful terms. Walt was out of line on WED, in terms of the stockholders; but in fact, his motivations were much purer and more reasonable than you tried to make them out to be. Walt wanted what he believed was his fair due from the company he worked so hard to build. In time, Roy came to see things more his way, and one day, after listening to Walt's agent and lawyers and his lawyers having a brutal, insulting shouting match in a room down the hall from his office, came storming in to defend Walt: "You forget how important Walt Disney has been to your careers. None of us would be here in this studio if it weren't for Walt. Your jobs, your benefits, everything you have are the results of Walt's sacrifices. He deserves a lot better treatment than he's been shown here today." (Quote taken from page 267 of Pat Williams' book).

And I'd like to borrow the above statement and say to you, Clever Name, that Walt deserves a lot better treatment from YOU as well. :wave:

 

[Clever Name]

Clearly Walt was completely dishonest and deceitful in the creation and operation of WED Enterprises. We know this because he kept it a complete secret from the Walt Disney Production shareholders. If a CEO pulled a similar move today he/she would be held criminally and civilly liable. There is no mistaking his intent was to defraud shareholders.

We only know about it today because Roy intervened and convinced Walt to come clean and sell his privately owned honey hole to the studio where it rightfully belonged. I encourage you to research the issue. You’ll find that most of the details are shrouded in secrecy to protect Walt’s image. The studio would rather have us think of Walt as Gepetto rather than as “honest” John Worthington Foulfellow. :wave:

 

[Tom]

I've done a bit more digging into my Disney books and here is the what the situation was: WED was created to build Disneyland. Walt wanted that because he no longer actually controlled his own company. Operational decision-making was in the hands of Roy and the board of directors, who answered to the stockholders, not to Walt. Walt resented that (and frankly, pragmatic or not, I sympathize with that view) and felt it wasn't fair. He also felt it wasn't fair that his good name was being used by Walt Disney Productions to enrich those stockholders and he, Walt Disney, wasn't getting anything out of it. (At this point, I agree with you - money was one of the motivations for Walt's actions. But there's a difference between someone being greedy and someone wanting fair compensation). Walt demanded that, since he was essentially no longer running Walt Disney Productions, that the company should pay him a licensing fee for the right to use his name. Roy took issue with that, and the feud was on.

Here's a direct quote from the book "How To Be Like Walt", by Pat Williams, about the feud: "Walt insisted that he only sought what was fair, after years of sacrifice. Roy argued that the arrangement Walt wanted would provoke a stockholder revolt. Walt's demands might be fair, but they gave an appearance of conflict of interest - a cozy deal for Walt that would rob stockholders of return on investment. The faintest whiff of impropriety could open the door to costly litigation".

Again, my issue with you is that you deliberately take what happened and try to use it to paint Walt as a greedy unethical scumbag, when that is patently not true. The above paragraph puts the situation into much more truthful terms. Walt was out of line on WED, in terms of the stockholders; but in fact, his motivations were much purer and more reasonable than you tried to make them out to be. Walt wanted what he believed was his fair due from the company he worked so hard to build. In time, Roy came to see things more his way, and one day, after listening to Walt's agent and lawyers and his lawyers having a brutal, insulting shouting match in a room down the hall from his office, came storming in to defend Walt: "You forget how important Walt Disney has been to your careers. None of us would be here in this studio if it weren't for Walt. Your jobs, your benefits, everything you have are the results of Walt's sacrifices. He deserves a lot better treatment than he's been shown here today." (Quote taken from page 267 of Pat Williams' book).

And I'd like to borrow the above statement and say to you, Clever Name, that Walt deserves a lot better treatment from YOU as well. :wave:

thank you for the well-researched and intelligent post. Nothing is black and white. Times were different. Public trading was new to Disney and not something the founder wants in many cases. Walt most certainly didn't. Again, we should be thankful he started WED or we'd be stuck with one "Disney" park built by bean counters and not people who care.

Clearly Walt was completely dishonest and deceitful in the creation and operation of WED Enterprises. We know this because he kept it a complete secret from the Walt Disney Production shareholders. If a CEO pulled a similar move today he/she would be held criminally and civilly liable. There is no mistaking his intent was to defraud shareholders.

We only know about it today because Roy intervened and convinced Walt to come clean and sell his privately owned honey hole to the studio where it rightfully belonged. I encourage you to research the issue. You’ll find that most of the details are shrouded in secrecy to protect Walt’s image. The studio would rather have us think of Walt as Gepetto rather than as “honest” John Worthington Foulfellow. :wave:

Sorry you find Walt to be such a despicable person. Perhaps you should show your disapproval by not visiting his illgotten parks and these forums, which obviously condone his heinous behavior.

 

[Clever Name]

Sorry you find Walt to be such a despicable person. Perhaps you should show your disapproval by not visiting his illgotten parks and these forums, which obviously condone his heinous behavior.

I have never really held Walt in contempt. As I stated before, he was a product of his time and his deceptive behavior is indicative of the accompanying circumstances. It certainly didn’t justify the dishonesty but it does serve to make it more understandable. Also, don’t overlook the fact that he paid dearly for his misdeeds. His brother Roy held Walt’s feet to the fire to ensure everything was set right. The aggrieved parties (the shareholders and the studio) got a fair and equitable settlement from Walt.

Most importantly, Walt learned a valuable lesson. It’s a shame that he died within two years of the settlement but it seems he walked the financial straight and narrow henceforth. :wave:

 

[sublimesting]

See what a great movie this would be?!:animwink:

 

[Magenta Panther]

I have never really held Walt in contempt. As I stated before, he was a product of his time and his deceptive behavior is indicative of the accompanying circumstances. It certainly didn’t justify the dishonesty but it does serve to make it more understandable. Also, don’t overlook the fact that he paid dearly for his misdeeds. His brother Roy held Walt’s feet to the fire to ensure everything was set right. The aggrieved parties (the shareholders and the studio) got a fair and equitable settlement from Walt.

Most importantly, Walt learned a valuable lesson. It’s a shame that he died within two years of the settlement but it seems he walked the financial straight and narrow henceforth. :wave:

He only wanted a fair share of the success of the company he'd shed blood and tears to build. That to me is an honest, not dishonest, motive. It's good to see that you've let up a bit on your harsh and untrue assessment of his character. Progress has been made! :kiss:

 

[Magenta Panther]

See what a great movie this would be?!:animwink:

If the facts were handled honestly and without an axe to grind, yes, it could be.

 

[Clever Name]

If the facts were handled honestly and without an axe to grind, yes, it could be.

As John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” That’s the reason why Walt decided to settle the WED fraud rather than attempt to fight. He was caught red handed. :wave:

 

[Magenta Panther]

As John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” That’s the reason why Walt decided to settle the WED fraud rather than attempt to fight. He was caught red handed. :wave:

Actually, he fought it like hell originally. So much so, that for some months, Walt and Roy barely spoke to each other. Roy made the first overture towards reconciliation when he stuck up for Walt in front of the lawyers fighting the case. That changed the atmosphere and brought the legendary "peace pipe" into play.

Yes, Walt inadvertently did an illegal thing regarding what he owed to stockholders (by "inadvertently" I mean he didn't deliberately set out to break a law; he naively believed what he was doing was fair); we agree on that. But he didn't do it because he was overall an unethical man, as you stated earlier. He did it to get a fair share of the success of the business he had struggled so hard to build. In time, Roy saw things his way, and in the end, according to Disney biographer Pat Williams, Walt got pretty much everything he wanted, under a different (and more legal) arrangement. I don't know why you're taking this one incident and trying to use it to paint a very dark picture of Walt Disney, when the incident itself proves nothing of the sort. I don't know why anyone, much less someone who frequents a Disney fanboard, would do something like that.