mikejs78
Premium Member
Just the comments here that there would be cuts coming. Makes sense if they lose the fight or don't fight, but not if they win.
Seems to me they have numerous avenues to fight this on.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Seems to me they have numerous avenues to fight this on.
Disney has been strangely silent on this issue.
Why?
Are they afraid? - I don't think so
Are they preparing to go to court? - Maybe, but courts are very unpredictable and may not be the best course of action.
Are the making plans to use other laws to turn this whole mess around and come out better or at least as good as before it started? Most likely.
RCID was very important in the early days of WDW, but may not be as essential now.
There is a lot that depends on FL laws. In some states it is permissible for a govt entity to abandon certain infrastructure and turn back to private control / ownership. If this is allowed in FL, RCID could turn roads, and utilities back to Disney ownership and cut out most govt control, other than meeting health regulations for the sewer and drinking water systems.
This is just speculation, but interesting to consider. I think both sides handled this situation wrong, but if Disney plays their cards right they could come out with a huge victory.
Why?
Are they afraid? - I don't think so
Are they preparing to go to court? - Maybe, but courts are very unpredictable and may not be the best course of action.
Are the making plans to use other laws to turn this whole mess around and come out better or at least as good as before it started? Most likely.
RCID was very important in the early days of WDW, but may not be as essential now.
There is a lot that depends on FL laws. In some states it is permissible for a govt entity to abandon certain infrastructure and turn back to private control / ownership. If this is allowed in FL, RCID could turn roads, and utilities back to Disney ownership and cut out most govt control, other than meeting health regulations for the sewer and drinking water systems.
This is just speculation, but interesting to consider. I think both sides handled this situation wrong, but if Disney plays their cards right they could come out with a huge victory.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Yes, people acting like Disney is somehow "remaining silent" in this are just too used to the 24 hour cable news/social media constant headlines mentality. Disney should not be making any lengthy statements right now. This is a real legal battle, not some social media tit for tat. The absolute worst thing they could do would be to escalate this further with more words and rhetoric. If they are smart, we will see nothing but brief statements about this until their lawyers actually begin to file and address this.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
So you are saying you won‘t buy products or do business with a company that does business in China? Never eat at McDonalds or any other chain restaurant? No iPhone or Android phone? Don‘t drive a car since every car manufacturer does business in China? Never stay in a hotel from a major chain? Must be pretty limiting.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
They have to plan for the worst. And the fight and transition won’t be cheap.
That’s all speculation that attendance will fall but it just seems like the quarterly profits in parks and resorts that Chapek releases to Wall Street in quarterly conference calls say the opposite.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
As I said above, one business day is not "strangely silent". I know we live in this instant, knee jerk reaction social media world - but coming out with lengthy statements and escalating the war of words would be the dumbest thing as a corporation they could do right now. It would only serve to hurt any actual legal proceedings.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
True but they may slow the pace of certain things due to higher risk and uncertainty. Even if they win in court or the government reversed course or created a new district with largely the same benefits there is still more uncertainty now than ever before and that adds a risk premium to any new project or spend. That doesn’t mean they won’t do anytjing just that the project has to be more profitable to meet their internal rate of return which now has a higher political risk premium.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
I would like to see data and stats from a third party disinterested source. TWDC is going to be very careful about any and all data / stats it releases to not have any or worst case minimize any negativity. I take any pronouncements by B.C. with more than a grain of salt.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The point of referring to retaliation is to prove impairment because they didn’t proactively limit or prevent disney’s activity. It is the deterrent or consequence being applied that makes it an impairment of their rights.
Their act of retaliation invokes the “chilling effect” doctrine. The chilling effect doctrine has been upheld that as violation of their rights because it deters participation/activity for fear of punishment. And deprivation of government benefit is recognized as punishment.
Several here have tried to claim it’s not a 1a topic because
1- they didn’t prevent disney from doing it or
2- that they didn’t punish disney itself or
3- that retaliation isn’t part of the text
The chilling effect doctrine interpreted by the supreme court is the simplest way to qualify how the action taken by the state limits free speech. It illustrates how all three of the retorts above are irrelevant because disney is still being deterred from their protected activity by the state acting to deprive disney of their government benefits.
Fear of punishment -> deterrence ~> chilling effect ~> 1a violation
Targeting reedy creek to deprive disney of benefit is the punitive action taken specifically to try to deprive disney of government benefits in response to their protected freedom of speech. It’s not hard to call it a deterrent when the state itself says it’s a bargining chip.
ETA: Chilling effect doctrine does not evolve from retaliation employment law - it’s the other way around. the reference of chilling effect in employment cases comes from the use of the chilling effect doctrine in supreme court cases around 1a including loyalty oaths and some other cold war era cases
Last edited:
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Exactly. At the end of the day this was done to silence Disney and stop them from speaking out and acting out against the state. The state has said that. This week it was RCID. What do they take next week and from who.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
The dollars can’t lie. They may try to spin the story but if attendance is down and hotel bookings are down and margins for the parks segment is down they won’t be able to hide it. The problem is we will be comparing Q3 2022 (Apr-Jun) to Q3 2021. With Covid restrictions still an issue in 2021 and also Easter being April 4 in 2021 putting part of the popular Spring Break week in Q2 it’s going to be impossible to see the impact of this on public numbers. The 2022 numbers will show huge increases year over year. So it may take another year to look at impacts on statistics and even then if there is a drop we won’t know if it’s people boycotting woke Disney or people avoiding lightning lane or because of a recession or other factor.
I am pretty sure that when the Q3 numbers come out in July they will be really, really good for the parks segment.
CEO/CFO Bob C and Christine , releases the results to Wall Street. Are you assuming the books are being cooked like what Enron did ?
mikejs78
Premium Member
I expect to see record attendance and record guest spend.
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
God I hope they leave for selfish reasons but it's not going to happen. People say they will but don't but it sounds good in their heads.
mikejs78
Premium Member
They can't leave FL but they can certainly scale back and relocate lots of jobs.
Coaster Lover
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
They need some sort of good news to raise the stock price. Stock has been on a decline over the past year and is now below where it was just prior to the start of the pandemic. Some good park numbers may help that (assuming they aren't countered by poor Disney+ numbers). A lot of CEOs live and die on the stock price...
At this point Disney is looking to maximize per cap spending with one time guests instead of focusing on frequent frugal visitors ( like me ). It is obvious that short term is to impress the Street but long term it is a huge gamble.
Last edited:
Imagine having the mentality of not being able to stop eating McDonald's. Pathetic... Healthy people don't eat that .
GoofGoof
Premium Member
The decline is mostly due to Disney+. When Netflix took a dump after poor numbers it pulled everyone in streaming down. While the pandemic had Disney parks and the movie studios shut down and/or scaled way back streaming business was the bright spot. Now it’s a drag on the stock price. It’s all cyclical.