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

[Brian]

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?

 

[James Alucobond]

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.

 

[Brian]

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).

 

[James Alucobond]

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.

 

[Brian]

... 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.

 

[MisterPenguin]

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).

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.

Why can they be dismissed? Because...

1. I have a red-hot raging hatred of Iger and want to see him go and humiliated, no matter what. Even if it means burning the parks to the ground (an actually stated stance of someone on these forums.)​

​

2. Anyone speaking on behalf of Iger is a problem. They're making it unlikely that Iger will be fired and humiliated. So, I'll use their vested interest in the status quo as an ad hominem. I'll tell people don't listen to them precisely because of their vested interest.​

​

3. I will cut out the part of my brain that tells me that, for these Iger advocates, they must also be sending the message that a Board with Peltz on it will be worse for their vested interest. I will ignore that logical conclusion. I'll just keep circling back to point out that their vested interest makes their advocacy null and void, and isn't actually an indictment against Peltz.​

This isn't a vote for Iger staying v. Iger going.

This is a vote for Peltz who will make things worse while keeping Iger on.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

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."

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.

Peltz himself is doing the same thing. This is not a moral failing on the part of Disney. But it is orchestrated. Disney is spending 10s of millions on this proxy fight. This is how these campaigns work.

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.

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.

That's my explanation for Disney's current malaise. I could be wrong, but that's my working hypothesis.

elf-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.

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.

 

[James Alucobond]

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.

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.

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.

No one said that is improbable. There were specific accusations of impropriety in terms of how endorsements were secured.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

3. I will cut out the part of my brain that tells me that, for these Iger advocates, they must also be sending the message that a Board with Peltz on it will be worse for their vested interest. I will ignore that logical conclusion. I'll just keep circling back to point out that their vested interest makes their advocacy null and void, and isn't actually an indictment against Peltz.

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.

BUT this is orchestrated by Disney's masterful PR team. That's why a series of endorsements will be released over the next few weeks. Disney will save high impact endorsements near the end. That could look like Steven Spielberg and Oprah Winfrey. Iger is calling in favors.

Disney doing this is not evil. Peltz has lined up a series of experts and CEOs to endorse him. This is just how the game is played.

No one said that is improbable. There were specific accusations of impropriety in terms of how endorsements were secured.

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.

 

[Brian]

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.

Why can they be dismissed? Because...

1. I have a red-hot raging hatred of Iger and want to see him go and humiliated, no matter what. Even if it means burning the parks to the ground (an actually stated stance of someone on these forums.)​

​

2. Anyone speaking on behalf of Iger is a problem. They're making it unlikely that Iger will be fired and humiliated. So, I'll use their vested interest in the status quo as an ad hominem. I'll tell people don't listen to them precisely because of their vested interest.​

​

3. I will cut out the part of my brain that tells me that, for these Iger advocates, they must also be sending the message that a Board with Peltz on it will be worse for their vested interest. I will ignore that logical conclusion. I'll just keep circling back to point out that their vested interest makes their advocacy null and void, and isn't actually an indictment against Peltz.​

This isn't a vote for Iger staying v. Iger going.

This is a vote for Peltz who will make things worse while keeping Iger on.

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.

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.

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.

 

[peter11435]

.

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.

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.

Then you have people who have spent years or decades working with or for Disney. People who are known to be lifelong Disney fans and people who we know care about the companies legacy and future… but statements from them are the ones you deem suspicious and hypothesize must be the result of payoffs and bribes.

You want people to believe Nelson Peltz is genuine but Olaf has something up his sleeve.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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

Pretty simple…

Can you explain to me what happened when Michael Eisner quit?

 

[Brian]

It implies you have no evidence and that what you propose seems needlessly conspiratorial.

Is it more likely that:

a) Josh Gad either offered to make a statement or was asked to make a statement, and that he either initiated the conversation or agreed to the request (as the case may be) due to his pre-existing relationship with Disney,

or

b) Disney paid Josh Gad off or threatened to melt Olaf in Frozen 3 if he didn't make a statement?

You're the one making accusations beyond what anyone can plainly see. You're the one that needs evidence.

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.

Again, if every speculative post on this site required one to cite sources, it would be an extremely boring place to be. Think about threads like 'something major coming to DHS' where there isn't even any evidence that something major is coming, besides the claim of one member. That thread is wild speculation about what may end up happening, everything from tearing down RnRC to Animation Courtyard, but not a single shred of evidence is presented because it can't be. Yet I don't see you or anyone else lecturing members about their speculation in that thread.

Except you are the one who has told us to blindly assume Peltz, Perlmutter and Rasulo have all had radical changes of heart.

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?

 

[peter11435]

Pretty simple…

Can you explain to me what happened when Michael Eisner quit?

Can you? Because I think you have a serious misunderstanding of this comparison

 

[Brian]

You have decades of evidence that support who these people were and what they are after…

We've had this argument before and don't see eye to eye.

If I had a gun to my head and my fate depended upon picking the correct outcome, of course I'd say that they would continue their old way of doing things. However, is it possible that in light of everything that has changed both internally and externally at Disney, and what the company has found in terms of guest feedback, that Rasulo would change his mind and realize that investment in the parks, including passive revenue generators, is necessary to keep up with competition, and even sign on to a statement to that effect?

I'd say that's at least a decent possibility.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Can you? Because I think you have a serious misunderstanding of this comparison

If you don’t know…look it up

And if I’m bothering you…ignore me

 

[peter11435]

We've had this argument before and don't see eye to eye.

If I had a gun to my head and my fate depended upon picking the correct outcome, of course I'd say that they would continue their old way of doing things. However, is it possible that in light of everything that has changed both internally and externally at Disney, and what the company has found in terms of guest feedback, that Rasulo would change his mind and realize that investment in the parks, including passive revenue generators, is necessary to keep up with competition, and even sign on to a statement to that effect?

I'd say that's at least a decent possibility.

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.

And Peltz? He just suddenly cares about Disney and its legacy and is no longer only interested in his own wealth?

I don’t know why you want to believe that there’s a “decent possibility” that people who have been one thing their entire careers have suddenly done a 180… instead of realizing that even their actions here prove that they are still the same people they’ve always been.

 

[Brian]

I don’t know why you want to believe that there’s a “decent possibility” that people who have been one thing their entire careers have suddenly done a 180… instead of realizing that even their actions here prove that they are still the same people they’ve always been.

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.

A good businessman is agile enough to change their way of thinking in light of changing circumstances.

 

[peter11435]

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.

A good businessman is agile enough to change their way of thinking in light of changing circumstances.

So why is he lying about his time with the company? Why is he acting like he has always been this way instead of acknowledging his supposed change in thinking?

 

[Brian]

So why is he lying about his time with the company? Why is he acting like he has always been this way instead of acknowledging his supposed change in thinking?

Because acknowledging a change of heart is somehow looked upon by the general population as a sign of weakness. Much like politicians, executives in major corporations will never admit they were wrong. I certainly wish they would, as IMHO, it's a sign of one's character to be able to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong, but that doesn't happen all too often.