News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026

[MisterPenguin]

All of these endorsements, including from people such as George Lucas who have previously been scathing in their criticism of Iger, should paint a pretty clear picture of how much worse Peltz and his cronies would be.

To reiterate- Bob Iger IS a horrible leader. Peltz is somehow 100x worse.

 

[peter11435]

So, if someone disagrees with you on their favorite pizza toppings or trivial things it's okay. But if someone disagrees with you on anything of significance that person is a moron.

That’s not even remotely what I said. People are free to disagree on issues of significance without being moronic. You really seem to be missing the point and blind to the reality of this situation despite the fact that all of the information is available for you to view. Disagreeing or having an opposing view point is not what it is stupid. Being a Disney fan and supporting Peltz despite all of the information that is publicly available about him, his past, and his intentions… is what makes you stupid.


If your favorite pizza topping is pickles then I would certainly disagree, but your opinion is just as valid as mine. But supporting Peltz is like saying your favorite pizza topping is rat poison. And that would certainly say a lot about your intelligence.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You can say it as many times as you like, but it is literally a binary choice. You vote yes or no on Trian's nominees.

Actually there is a third option

And there are 12 members to a board…Trian proposed 2

Math not your wheelhouse, huh?

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Your options were the status quo (Iger) or far worse (Peltz).

If there is ever an ACTUAL adult in the room who magically appears on the scene and has the potential to serve as a viable alternative and improvement over Iger, or otherwise improve things, then we can discuss giving them power. Peltz is not that person. And until such a person actually comes into existence, this fight is quite one sided and Iger is the only option.

The decision between "status quo" or "far worse" is indeed an obvious one. But I remain unconvinced that this is the choice. Certain decisions have been made because of an inadequate board of directors. The board of directors is largely in Iger's pocket. They foolishly did not take any effort to consider any candidates besides Chapek, because Iger chose him. They overpaid for the Fox deal by tens of billions, because Iger wanted it. They cooperated with lower level executives to conduct a coup against Chapek, mere months after extending Chapek's contract. That has cost the company credibility and tens of millions of dollars.

Peltz seems like a guy who can go into the room and actually challenge Bob Iger. Someone who can be disagreeable and take him to task on his pet spending projects. That's what Disney has needed for a decade. More discipline and space for internal debate. He also seems unphased by being unpopular. He would be the one willing to say to Iger, "ESPN doesn't make sense... axe it." Even if the board disagrees, at least they're hearing a different non-Iger perspective.

Walt Disney and Roy Disney were not afraid of being brutally honest. They both could be blunt and direct. Their passionate disagreements could boil over into vicious fighting. It was this passion and directness that made Walt Disney Productions so effective. Every idea could be heard. Bad ideas could be shot down, and good ones would rise up.

Modern Disney is a place where "Disney Nice" (which actually is completely un-Disney) stifles direct communication and feedback. This creates a toxic culture where factions conspire amongst themselves and are insubordinate. Bad ideas are allowed to perpetuate unchecked for fear of offending someone.

The CNBC expose on Bob Chapek's tenure was absolutely catastrophic. I had always loathed Iger, but I still would have voted for him and his nominees in this proxy fight, until I read the CNBC piece. That CNBC article blew my mind. The incompetence, the immaturity, the cowardice, and the dishonesty that permeates every aspect of Team Disney Burbank stunned me. The bizarre emotional manipulation Iger regularly deployed against his hand-picked successor was disgusting.

I realized after reading the article that Bob Iger is Disney's problem. Not the culture wars, not penny-pinching, not bad movies, not a lack of financial discipline, not even bad acquisitions. It was the toxic corporate culture and hubris that Iger had manifested. This is a corporate culture problem. Bob Iger is so bad that literally anyone who is resistant to his manipulations will be an improvement.

He must be stopped for Disney to ever have a fighting chance to survive. If not, the firm will continue its self immolation.

 

[Casper Gutman]

There three entities at play: Disney, Blackwells, and Trian. Not binary.

Blackwell wants to turn Disney into an IT company and use AI to develop new characters. Is that better then Iger?

Make the case that Blackwell or Trian is better then Iger based on their past actions and statements. That's the relevant discussion. more complaining about Iger is just throwing a tantrum. No one here likes what Iger has done to Walt Disney World... but that's not what we're talking about.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Everyone has seen your posts here and in other threads.

You hand wave all evidence. Earlier in this thread, you flat out rejected all evidence of Perlmutter's well-documented past behavior because its inconvenient to you. Having announced that you wouldn't accept any negative evidence about Perlmutter's past behavior, you relayed a vague, completely fictional history of some of his actions. You do the same with Peltz - you ignore the plan he has outlined in writing and his history at other companies and pretend his motives and intentions are something other then they actually are.

You're not stupid or evil, but you're very devoted to your "team." You'll dismiss any evidence against anyone on your "side" and contort yourself to put their actions in the best light, even if that means just making things up.

And you're not a "fool" for voting for Peltz, but if you have even a passing fondness for Disney and voted for Peltz, you've DONE something incredibly foolish.

And to prove my point, your defense of your actions is vague, evidence-free nonsense. Based on CONCRETE HISTORIC EXAMPLES, what kind of "adult supervision" will Peltz provide?

And this is where you get in trouble…

First…you are certainly not “everyone”. The level of disgruntlement amongst Disney fans is as high as I’ve ever seen it. Especially with P&R focused ones.

And that doesn’t mean they are authoritarian political leaning OR bigots in disguise…
So let me take those arrows out of your quiver too

It’s entirely possible that a growing number of people want change because it’s past time. Read the ISS recommendation. Their not even backing Peltz…they’re calling out iger’s chapek debaucle and saying it should ensure his exit…and suggesting the institutional investor vote to get that in motion

Not at all crazy…evil…or regressive

 

[James Alucobond]

Actually there is a third option

And there are 12 members to a board…Trian proposed 2

Math not your wheelhouse, huh?

Please enlighten us as to the combination of nominees you suggest and how they will materially improve the situation.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The decision between "status quo" or "far worse" is indeed an obvious one. But I remain unconvinced that this is the choice. Certain decisions have been made because of an inadequate board of directors. The board of directors is largely in Iger's pocket. They foolishly did not take any effort to consider any candidates besides Chapek, because Iger chose him. They overpaid for the Fox deal by tens of billions, because Iger wanted it. They cooperated with lower level executives to conduct a coup against Chapek, mere months after extending Chapek's contract. That has cost the company credibility and tens of millions of dollars.

Peltz seems like a guy who can go into the room and actually challenge Bob Iger. Someone who can be disagreeable and take him to task on his pet spending projects. That's what Disney has needed for a decade. More discipline and space for internal debate. He also seems unphased by being unpopular. He would be the one willing to say to Iger, "ESPN doesn't make sense... axe it." Even if the board disagrees, at least they're hearing a different non-Iger perspective.

What, specifically, is Peltz going to "challenge" Iger over? Well, based on what we know, he wants huge amounts of meddling by executives in the creative filmmaking process and he wants to curtail spending dramatically, both in the parks and the studios. Is that a positive challenge?

Walt Disney and Roy Disney were not afraid of being brutally honest. They both could be blunt and direct. Their passionate disagreements could boil over into vicious fighting. It was this passion and directness that made Walt Disney Productions so effective. Every idea could be heard. Bad ideas could be shot down, and good ones would rise up.

Walt and Roy cared about the long-term health of the company that had their names attached. Peltz cares ONLY about short-term gain. He has far less interest then even Iger in the success or failure of the company in the long term.

Modern Disney is a place where "Disney Nice" (which actually is completely un-Disney) stifles direct communication and feedback. This creates a toxic culture where factions conspire amongst themselves and are insubordinate. Bad ideas are allowed to perpetuate unchecked for fear of offending someone.

The CNBC expose on Bob Chapek's tenure was absolutely catastrophic. I had always loathed Iger, but I still would have voted for him and his nominees in this proxy fight, until I read the CNBC piece. That CNBC article blew my mind. The incompetence, the immaturity, the cowardice, and the dishonesty that permeates every aspect of Team Disney Burbank stunned me. The bizarre emotional manipulation Iger regularly deployed against his hand-picked successor was disgusting.

I realized after reading the article that Bob Iger is Disney's problem. Not the culture wars, not penny-pinching, not bad movies, not a lack of financial discipline, not even bad acquisitions. It was the toxic corporate culture and hubris that Iger had manifested. This is a corporate culture problem. Bob Iger is so bad that literally anyone who is resistant to his manipulations will be an improvement.

Iger is not the problem. His preference for cutting costs over earning more by spending more, his obsession with ROI, his fundamental distaste for the way theme parks operate as a business - these are products of the overwhelmingly dominant American corporate culture, one that emerged in the late 70s. Peltz is a product of the exact same culture, but for various reasons he is a far more malignant example - his willingness to destroy companies for personal gain and move on, for instance, is not something of which Iger can be accused. Iger is a symptom, not a disease, and getting MUCH, MUCH sicker is not a cure.

He must be stopped for Disney to ever have a fighting chance to survive. If not, the firm will continue its self immolation.

Self-immolation - for seven years Disney was the dominant studio in Hollywood. Its success under Iger is astounding. The parks, as much as I hate Florida's direction, are very successful, This is insane hyperbole.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Fair point, but would you at least consider it as a possibility? Gad's statement did read awfully like a press release, or even text from the voteDisney website.

It's not like they don't already do similar things with influencers at the parks.

How much did Peltz pay ISS? I mean, if it's all just conspiracies on conspiracies...

 

[Brian]

How much did Peltz pay ISS? I mean, if it's all just conspiracies on conspiracies...

C'mon... do you really think Gad came up with that PR department dribble all on his own?

Maybe they're not being paid, but certainly Iger could be calling in favors. It's not like Gad, Eisner, Lucas, and more each decided to write statements of support all on their own without any prompting.

Why is it so hard to believe that the company views Trian as a sufficient enough threat to rely on their supporters for endorsements? They've shown in other ways, including the rather broad get out the vote campaign (Vote Disney website) with paid advertising, that they view Trian as a threat.

 

[James Alucobond]

C'mon... do you really think Gad came up with that PR department dribble all on his own?

Maybe they're not being paid, but certainly Iger could be calling in favors. It's not like Gad, Eisner, Lucas, and more each decided to write statements of support all on their own without any prompting.

A person who regularly works with Disney reaching out (probably via their manager/communication team) to Disney to coordinate messaging and ask how they can be most helpful, accurate, and on-message (probably after Disney sent out some warning regarding the impending vote) is not the same as accusing Disney of paying people off to side with them.

 

[Brian]

A person who regularly works with Disney reaching out (probably via their manager/communication team) to Disney to coordinate messaging and ask how they can be most helpful, accurate, and on-message (probably after Disney sent out some warning regarding the impending vote) is not the same as accusing Disney of paying people off to side with them.

I don't fault the company for utilizing every arrow in their quiver, whether paid off (monetarily or otherwise) or as a good will gesture. I'm merely pointing out the fact that this may not be the result of 100% altruism in each and every one of the people who has come out with endorsements, especially those with carefully crafted messaging that reads more like a PR professional wrote it instead of reading like it was written in one's own personal "voice."

 

[peter11435]

Why is it so hard to believe that the company views Trian as a sufficient enough threat to rely on their supporters for endorsements? They've shown in other ways, including the rather broad get out the vote campaign (Vote Disney website) with paid advertising, that they view Trian as a threat.

Why is it so hard to believe that people with connections to Disney who clearly care about the company and it’s legacy and future (Gad, Lucas, Eisner, Disneys, etc…) might view Trian/Peltz as a threat and want to do what they can to help.

 

[James Alucobond]

I don't fault the company for utilizing every arrow in their quiver, whether paid off (monetarily or otherwise) or as a good will gesture. I'm merely pointing out the fact that this may not be the result of 100% altruism in each and every one of the people who has come out with endorsements, especially those with carefully crafted messaging that reads more like a PR professional wrote it instead of reading like it was written in one's own personal "voice."

Again, there is zero evidence that this is not how they feel, and whether or not they actually wrote their own statements (which would be surprising for people with managers and comms teams anyway) is of no consequence. They still read the statements and signed off on them.

 

[Brian]

Why is it so hard to believe that people with connections to Disney who clearly care about the company and it’s legacy and future (Gad, Lucas, Eisner, Disneys, etc…) might view Trian/Peltz as a threat and want to do what they can to help.

I don't necessarily disbelieve that. I just consider that my theory may be correct given the number of people who have come out, as well as the content of their statements.

I don't know why it's hard to believe that the company might be asking for favors. I certainly would if I were in their position and had concern about Trian's chances.

 

[peter11435]

I'm merely pointing out the fact that this may not be the result of 100% altruism in each and every one of the people who has come out with endorsements, especially those with carefully crafted messaging that reads more like a PR professional wrote it instead of reading like it was written in one's own personal "voice."

You realize people on their level rarely if ever say or write anything in their own personal “voice.” Everything they say and do is carefully crafted. People like this all have agents and PR professionals and always work with those of the people and organizations they are speaking about. This shouldn’t be a surprise or seem unusual.

 

[Brian]

You realize people on their level rarely if ever say or write anything in their own personal “voice.” Everything they say and do is carefully crafted. People like this all have agents and PR professionals and always work with those of the people and organizations they are working with. This shouldn’t be a surprise or seem unusual.

If you look at Gad's social media (particular his accounts on X and Threads), there's little evidence that he utilizes a PR professional for his posts. This one stands out from the others.

 

[James Alucobond]

I don't necessarily disbelieve that. I just consider that my theory may be correct given the number of people who have come out, as well as the content of their statements.

Your gut instinct is not really sufficient grounds upon which to ask others to accept this as being likely. Again, many improbable things are possible, but it's a distraction (perhaps as much for yourself as others) to fill the topic with posts that basically amount to, "I dunno guys, this thing could maybe be fishy."

 

[Brian]

Your gut instinct is not really sufficient grounds upon which to ask others to accept this as being likely. Again, many improbable things are possible, but it's a distraction (perhaps as much for yourself as others) to fill the topic with posts that basically amount to, "I dunno guys, this thing could maybe be fishy."

Certainly, but one of the purposes of discussion boards like these is to fill in the blanks with guesses as to what could be happening behind the scenes. Nobody on these forums is well-connected enough to know what's going on in the C Suite, so we're left to speculate.

It's a possibility. I make no claim to it being absolute fact. It's the kind of thing that can never be proven or disproven unless we get a book like Disney War about this saga down the line.

 

[James Alucobond]

Certainly, but the purpose of discussion boards like these is to fill in the blanks with guesses as to what could be happening behind the scenes. Nobody on these forums is well-connected enough to know what's going on in the C Suite (and if they are, they're certainly not going to be posting about it), so we're left to speculate.

It's a possibility. I make no claim to it being absolute fact.

The point is to parse out which things that could be happening behind the scenes are most likely. You keep insisting that people acknowledge the possibility of your accusation, but it really shouldn't be dignified with acknowledgement because it is baseless. You keep repeating it so that people can validate your suspicion and you can feel justified in holding an opinion contrary to the far more probable explanation, but it's actually just oversaturating the thread with misleading information.