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.
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.
Again, do you really think that in the face of what the company views as a threat, they would not ask their allies for endorsements?
That was not the accusation. Disney made a very public call to action. No one denies that. The accusation was that they were paying people off or manipulating them via business connections.
I fail to see why that would be so unbelievable, especially if they won't agree to do it without some form of compensation (monetary or otherwise).
... You started over. You can literally just cycle back through our posts from the top of this page to re-read the problems with continuing to amplify this notion when there's no evidence to support it.
By that logic, the 75% of the forum that is speculation about what may be coming down the line or what is happening behind the scenes should be deleted since there's no evidence to support it.
The problem is what inevitably comes next: An insinuation that for whatever vested interest they have in the status quo, whether compensated or not, that those advocates can be dismissed.
Bob Iger getting endorsements, like Michael Eisner did during the last proxy fight, is "improbable?" This is a scorched earth proxy battle. Securing supporters and lobbying voters is like the entire point. There's nothing improbable about that. This is a political campaign. The rules of politics are now in force.
I think you've missed the core of my critique on Iger's leadership. If Iger were simply a penny-pinching CEO, that would actually not be as threatening to Disney. The rot is the "Disney Nice" virus that has taken hold across the executive team. People are afraid to share bad news, they don't critically challenge decision making, and they are afraid of speaking up for fear of being seen as not "nice." This has created a situation where bad decisions are made with no pushback and backstabbing and plotting are the norm. By always avoiding "Disney Nice," it creates toxicity and resentment in the workplace.
What happened between the board and Bob Chapek was self-immolation. The board of directors acted with impulsivity and with no clear strategic objective. The incompetence on display with that entire episode was appalling.
Speculation occurs, but most people don't keep repeating things that are unlikely or untrue over and over again; likewise, they don't enter conversations intent on believing unlikely things and convincing others that their unlikely thoughts should be validated. They come looking for clarification, knowledge, or expertise they lack.
No one said that is improbable. There were specific accusations of impropriety in terms of how endorsements were secured.
I don't think me or @Brian are suggesting that Eisner, Jobs, Gad, Lucas, etc. are not acting according to their beliefs. That's never been the point. They put their name on the document and approved it for submission. It's their stated opinion and message.
In that case, my bad I don't want to misrepresent you. I think there may have been a miscommunication. You may have thought Disney "calling in favors" meant some sort of impropriety. @Brian can clarify, but I don't think that's what he meant. I think it's more Iger calling up friends and supporters for help.
Arguendo, let's say that's true. That would mean that the reader must accept these figures as authorities on the topic in the first place. Personally, I wouldn't base my vote on what Josh Gad or George Lucas has to say. I'd be looking into what the various candidates have to say as to the future of the company, as well as what Wall Street analysts are saying.
This post seems to imply that you have evidence my theory is false. By all means, if you do, please present it. But I'm assuming (not through any fault of your own, of course) that you do not have such evidence, as it is more or less an unfalsifiable theory, at least at this point in time.
Think about it. You insist on believing Peltz statesments at face value despite his history. Here’s a man who has for decades never shown any care, concern, or admiration for Disney until recently. And now you are desperate to believe that he wants to make Disney better and restore the Magic, despite the fact that he has a known history of using companies only to advance his own personal wealth.
But again, it's an unfalsifiable theory, so I have no means of providing evidence. Anything resembling evidence would be either hearsay, or proprietary and unable to be shared here.
Is there proof they have or have not? Or is it like everything else around here and requires one to speculate, and in my case, present an alternative possibility to the narrative?
Can you? Because I think you have a serious misunderstanding of this comparison
We've had this argument before and don't see eye to eye.
Weird that he never had that change of heart during his decades with the company. Also weird that he’s not publicly saying that he’s had a change of heart but instead is lying about his time with the company.
Because circumstances have changed. Disney is not the same company it was during Rasulo's tenure, and it is not operating in the same market. Not even close.
