Roy O Disney Letter to Stockholders

Dwarful

Dwarful

Well-Known Member
Hey all41, I was just reading that and wondering if a majority of the stockholders will respond with a no vote for all four. What do you and everyone else on this board think will happen?? just curious.

sidenote to all41, aren't you loving this weather? I am keeping my fingers crossed for no snow day tomorrow.
 
Snapper Bean

Snapper Bean

Active Member
Let's be realistic. All 4 directors are going to be re-elected by a wide, wide margin. Disney and Gold are hoping for a "protest" vote to keep their story in the press but there is no reasonable chance that those directors are not re-elected. The largest blocks of stock are going to be voted by fund managers and they are not going to oust Eisner, Mitchell, Bryson and Estrin because of this campaign.

Snapper Bean
 
G

General Grizz

New Member
Originally posted by Snapper Bean
Let's be realistic. All 4 directors are going to be re-elected by a wide, wide margin. Disney and Gold are hoping for a "protest" vote to keep their story in the press but there is no reasonable chance that those directors are not re-elected. The largest blocks of stock are going to be voted by fund managers and they are not going to oust Eisner, Mitchell, Bryson and Estrin because of this campaign.

Snapper Bean
Click to expand...

While I accept your take on realism, I believe that we should (at least for those who believe in Roy and Stan) do EVERYTHING possible as shareholders and not let these "realities" set us back from trying. :)

If this was truly impossible, Roy and Stan would not be doing this. Remember...dreams can come true.
 
Snapper Bean

Snapper Bean

Active Member
Hey, I'm no Eisner fan. I just don't want anyone to get their hopes up. The article referred to it as a protest vote which is something you do for symbolism, not because you think you have a reasonable chance of achieving success. I will admit to not following the Save Disney Campaign very closely. I'm mostly concerned about the parks and would be curious as to the views on the preservation and upkeep and development of the parks.
 
G

General Grizz

New Member
Roy mentioned parks quickly in that letter...if you read his NFFC comments, you'll be able to see his outlook on parks (better maintence, more high-budgeted, long-term attractions), etc.
 
jojoyner55

jojoyner55

New Member
I hate to say this, and I know I will take a great deal of flak for saying this, but -
Did any of you read Roy and Gold's message carefully? Their main complaint and central argument is that Eisner has "failed to grow" revenues, etc: In other words, he hasn't made them money fast enough. Folks, this isn't about the Disney "magic" - this is about Gold advising Roy that Eisner isn't making them both enough money. There was a revealing article in Time Magazine a few years ago about Gold - it boiled down to that he is about money first and foremost for his clients - Roy and other Disney family members. There is no good or bad in this fight: it is all about money. Roy and Gold want more, faster; Eisner wants to keep things as they are. If any of you think either side "cares" about the magic, cares about the parks as anything other than a means to line their pockets...well, it ain't happening. We poor fools who truly care about the parks because we spent our hard earned dollars and emotions there need to keep focused on one thing: This fight between Roy and Eisner isn't about the parks, the magic - it is a petty squabble about money, between people who have more of it than thay know what to to with, but are just greedy for more. I am sure I will be raked over the coals for saying this - but the bottom line is; neither Roy nor Eisner gives a ____ about us, just their bottom line. Walt cared; but his like comes along only once a millenium.
 
Shaman

Shaman

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by jojoyner55
I hate to say this, and I know I will take a great deal of flak for saying this, but -
Did any of you read Roy and Gold's message carefully? Their main complaint and central argument is that Eisner has "failed to grow" revenues, etc: In other words, he hasn't made them money fast enough. Folks, this isn't about the Disney "magic" - this is about Gold advising Roy that Eisner isn't making them both enough money. There was a revealing article in Time Magazine a few years ago about Gold - it boiled down to that he is about money first and foremost for his clients - Roy and other Disney family members. There is no good or bad in this fight: it is all about money. Roy and Gold want more, faster; Eisner wants to keep things as they are. If any of you think either side "cares" about the magic, cares about the parks as anything other than a means to line their pockets...well, it ain't happening. We poor fools who truly care about the parks because we spent our hard earned dollars and emotions there need to keep focused on one thing: This fight between Roy and Eisner isn't about the parks, the magic - it is a petty squabble about money, between people who have more of it than thay know what to to with, but are just greedy for more. I am sure I will be raked over the coals for saying this - but the bottom line is; neither Roy nor Eisner gives a ____ about us, just their bottom line. Walt cared; but his like comes along only once a millenium.
Click to expand...

Interesting observation....and I'll be the first to agree with Eisner that without money...YOU CAN'T DO NOTHIN....but I think that Roy and Stan are trying to point out Eisner's lack of good management, which they believe has hindered the progress and the profit making of the company....reading the letters of resignation I kind of got the idea that they were angry at the lack of vision with decisions.....

Eisner looks for the cheap way out...which in the long run costs more (a perfect example would be DCA...cheap at first but now it seems like things are going to cost way more than if it would've been done right the first time)...this is the point they're making....they are saying EISNER is not managing the money correctly (the parks are being looked over when they make alot more profit than some sectors)....and thus the company is suffering not in the short run but in the long run....

The money is in the traditional values of the company...those are what made the company what they are today....the money came after....that their central arguement....atleast thats what I think it is....
 
MKCustodial

MKCustodial

Well-Known Member
I got that e-mail as well, and even though I can't actively do anything, I wish you all the best of luck on March 3rd. Walt is counting on our faith. It'd be awesome if as many of you as possible could be on that meeting.
 
M

MrDisney16

Member
What Eisner fails to understand is building a more expensive, more elaborite (sp?) attraction that will last longer will save them money in the future and increase their bottom line.:cool: Look at DCA. I would be willing to bet that a lot of those attractions with the exception of Soarin will probably be eplaced in a couple of years. If the attractions last longer they may not be brand new every time a guest returns but if the detail is there guests will ride it over and over again. In other words, make a classic like POTC or Haunted Mansion. When was the last time we saw an attraction like that. Just my .02 cents.:D
 
Matterbuggy

Matterbuggy

New Member
I'm a little confused..

If more people vote no.. do these people get fired? If so.. what would this do to stock prices. We have to start playing "The Stock Market Simulation" in February.
 
Shaman

Shaman

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Matterbuggy
I'm a little confused..

If more people vote no.. do these people get fired? If so.. what would this do to stock prices. We have to start playing "The Stock Market Simulation" in February.
Click to expand...

The voting no...is like a vote of no confidence...since The Disney Company is a publicly owned company, the stockholders have the say when it comes to CEO...I'm not an expert on the subject but I think thats how it works....feel free to correct me if I'm wrong....

:hammer:
 
NashvilleMouse

NashvilleMouse

New Member
I believe it is the board that assigns the CEO. The stockholders have say on items brought to their attention. Many things can be decided on the votes of stockholders (those with a significant amount of stock), and there are some things that are decided by the CEO and the board. If they (board members) make decisions that are not popular by the stock holders, the stock holders can elect new board members, etc.
 
Woody13

Woody13

New Member
Originally posted by DisneyInsider
They don't lose their jobs in the company. Just their position on the board.
Click to expand...

It's too late for a proxy fight as the deadline has all ready passed. If Roy and Stan started now to gear up for a proxy battle, the vote couldn't be held before the winter of 2005. :wave:
 
Pioneer Hall

Pioneer Hall

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Woody13
It's too late for a proxy fight as the deadline has all ready passed. If Roy and Stan started now to gear up for a proxy battle, the vote couldn't be held before the winter of 2005. :wave:
Click to expand...

I still haven't received my Proxy in the mail. So how could it be too late?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom