News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

Piebald

Piebald

Well-Known Member
None of this surprises me because I felt like Disney was being very coy and there didn't seem to be much pushback. From the outside perspective it seemed like this was Disney:
OkayGuy (2).jpg


But now we see they ultimately trolled Desantis with impressive tact.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Figgy1 said:
Wait, So the new board couldn't bother to show up or send representatives to a public meeting of what they were taking over? Would that be considered lazy, ignorant, just plain stupid? All of the above?
Also Disney: Our lawyers are smarter than your lawyers:joyfull:
Click to expand...
If it does turn out that they pooched this…it really shouldn’t surprise.

This is a group of inexperienced elected hacks - look them up - and they have to hire their own staff

Disney…on the other hand…is a Dow 30 company. Did anyone think chapek hired the lawyers?
No way…too much money at stake. Well above his pay grade. Remember that the board was also taking orders from someone else…
…the whole time
 
Last edited:
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
trainplane3 said:
Full article on it:
www.orlandosentinel.com

DeSantis’ Reedy Creek board says Disney stripped its power

LAKE BUENA VISTA — Gov. Ron DeSantis’ handpicked board overseeing Disney World’s government services is gearing up for a potential legal battle over a 30-year development agreement they…
www.orlandosentinel.com www.orlandosentinel.com
View attachment 707165

I may not understand much legal stuff but this is just really funny to me.
Click to expand...
From the article:

Among other things, the agreement spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”​
​
That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.​

Is this intended as trolling? Doesn’t such obvious mockery (I assume that’s what it is) weaken Disney’s case if the agreement is challenged in court?

ETA: As others go on to point out, this is actually a real thing:

Royal lives clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
SoFloMagic

SoFloMagic

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
From the article:

Among other things, the agreement spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”​
​
That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.​

Is this intended as trolling? Doesn’t such obvious mockery (I assume that’s what it is) weaken Disney’s case if the agreement is challenged in court?
Click to expand...
Not a lawyer, but it sounds like this was a decision passed in an appropriatly called meeting by an appropriately-elected board.

Florida just didn't see it coming.
 
Drdcm

Drdcm

Well-Known Member
This is probably a stupid question, but could the board just retaliate by closing the roads, since that is still apparently their responsibility?
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
afterabme said:
Also, important to remember that the Florida legislature is still in session until May. It’s not all of the possibility that the house or the senate could introduce new legislation regarding potential dissolution of the cities, or further legislation relating to the district.
Click to expand...
They can try but the challenge will be not targeting these specific contracts doing it in a way that isn’t technically just about these contracts.
 
MagicHappens1971

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
From the article:

Among other things, the agreement spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”​
​
That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.​

Is this intended as trolling? Doesn’t such obvious mockery (I assume that’s what it is) weaken Disney’s case if the agreement is challenged in court?
Click to expand...
No. They tied the contract to several peoples lives, in the event the contracts perpetuity clause could be ended. It’s a backup plan. Also mocking someone doesn’t make the law/legally binding contracts any less valid.
 
SoFloMagic

SoFloMagic

Well-Known Member
MagicHappens1971 said:
No. They tied the contract to several peoples lives, in the event the contracts perpetuity clause could be ended. It’s a backup plan. Also mocking someone doesn’t make the law/legally binding contracts any less valid.
Click to expand...
Also the "Its not fair, they did this at an advertised meeting of the board I was set to join, how could I be expected to know about this" argument isn't super strong
 
Couchman's View

Couchman's View

New Member
HistoryLesson said:
King Charles III is not the King of England. He is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

Tha last King of England Was WILLIAM III who died in 1702. There hasn't been a King or Queen of England longer than there has been a United States of America.
Click to expand...
Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms.[a] Since England is part of the United Kingdom, Charles is King of England. Sorry, no loop hole here.
 
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
MagicHappens1971 said:
No. They tied the contract to several peoples lives, in the event the contracts perpetuity clause could be ended. It’s a backup plan. Also mocking someone doesn’t make the law/legally binding contracts any less valid.
Click to expand...
The reference to Charles III (!) seems totally random, and therefore mocking, to me. Do other agreements of this sort refer to figures who have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand?

I’m not sure if a lawyer could make anything of this or not, but there’s no such rank as “king of England” anyway; Charles is king of the United Kingdom.

ETA: I see the appropriately named @HistoryLesson beat me to the latter point.
 
danv3

danv3

Well-Known Member
HistoryLesson said:
King Charles III is not the King of England. He is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

Tha last King of England Was WILLIAM III who died in 1702. There hasn't been a King or Queen of England longer than there has been a United States of America.
Click to expand...
I was just going to say that. There's no such person as "King Charles III, King of England."

Very embarrassing for the lawyers who drafted this. Yikes.
 
MagicHappens1971

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
The reference to Charles III (!) seems totally random, and therefore mocking, to me. Do other agreements of this sort refer to figures who have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it wasn’t mocking. I said that it doesn’t make it any less valid. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say if there are other agreements similar.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom