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

[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.

 

[peter11435]

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.

But lying when those lies are easily provable is a sign of strength?

 

[Lilofan]

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.

Changing ways in reaction to where and when the winds blows.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I do know. It’s you who I think doesn’t. Or more likely you’re intentionally mischaracterizing.

Then you know that Eisner was challenged by corporate raiders who put up an alternate ceo candidate…they got 51% of the shareholder votes, quickly took control and fired him

…that’s how it went, right?

 

[lazyboy97o]

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?

Where is the evidence that they have? You are demanding proof of something you know does not exist.

And just in the past few days Peltz reiterated Perlmutter’s sexist and racist views. So that’s a knock against the “they’ve changed” argument and the “bigotry isn’t a factor” argument.

 

[Tha Realest]

As to the issue of the sudden coincidence of all these people posting at the same time their support of Disney/Iger, here’s Axios:

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/21/disney-proxy-fight-nelson-peltz-defense-strategy

State of play: Disney has also launched a wide reaching surrogate strategy, winning the public support of JP MorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon, Star Wars creator and one of Disney's largest shareholders, George Lucas, and eight grandchildren of Walt and Roy Disney.

 

[peter11435]

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.

Or maybe… now hear me out on this.

Neither have changed. They are both the same people with the same agendas they have always had. But they are both smart enough to know what to say and when to say it to appeal to different groups and get what they want. And they know some people are dumb enough to fall for it.

 

[Brian]

Or maybe… now hear me out on this.

Neither have changed. They are both the same people with the same agendas they have always had. But they are both smart enough to know what to say and when to say it to appeal to different groups and get what they want. And they know some people are dumb enough to fall for it.

Possibly.

Where is the evidence that they have? You are demanding proof of something you know does not exist.

And just in the past few days Peltz reiterated Perlmutter’s sexist and racist views. So that’s a knock against the “they’ve changed” argument and the “bigotry isn’t a factor” argument.

I'm demanding proof to highlight for @James Alucobond and others how absurd it is to demand proof about something that cannot be proven because no evidence in public.

But lying when those lies are easily probable is a sign of strength?

Certainly not. I don't agree with the mentality I described. Like I said, I would consider it a tremendous sign of character is business executives or politicians would admit they were wrong, as it would demonstrate an ability to swallow one's pride.

 

[lazyboy97o]

How is reducing or at least delaying parks investment even more a positive change?

How is the board being directly involved in movie making a positive change?

How is the idea that movies can have too many black people in them a positive change?

How is the idea that movies can have too many women in them a positive change?

 

[Brian]

There is evidence, you just chose to ignore it because you don’t want to address it. Recent comments are evidence. Past actions are evidence, and remain valid when supported by more recent actions/statements.

There's also evidence that Rasulo has had a change of heart by signing on to a letter that includes the following statement (emphasis added):

Disney’s parks have long been a crown jewel of the Company and remain an important part of its future. But even though admission prices have increased by more than 35% over the last ten years,12 Disney recently revealed the need to invest a whopping $60 billion into its parks and cruise lines over the next ten years, seemingly to catch up for delayed or deferred investment.13 Disney has failed to answer how it plans to compete with Universal’s new attractions, why it has not kept pace with development, how and where this money will be spent, or what returns shareholders can expect to earn on this massive investment.

We've discussed this before, and I realize you view that statement differently than I do, if I recall correctly. But from where I sit, Rasulo and Peltz view Disney as behind in terms of investment. Certainly not something you would say if you felt no investment is necessary.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There's also evidence that Rasulo has had a change of heart by signing on to a letter that includes the following statement (emphasis added):


We've discussed this before, and I realize you view that statement differently than I do, if I recall correctly. But from where I sit, Rasulo and Peltz view Disney as behind in terms of investment. Certainly not something you would say if you felt no investment is necessary.

And you’re completely ignoring their call to pause that planned investment, which they describe as exceptionally large, for further review. Their position as you present it is a contradiction.

 

[Ayla]

Or maybe… now hear me out on this.

Neither have changed. They are both the same people with the same agendas they have always had. But they are both smart enough to know what to say and when to say it to appeal to different groups and get what they want. And they know some people are dumb enough to fall for it.

 

[Brian]

And you’re completely ignoring their call to pause that planned investment, which they describe as exceptionally large, for further review. Their position as you present it is a contradiction.

Pause it for clarification on where and how it will be spent in order to ensure good shareholder return, if I understand it correctly. That's not unreasonable for $60 billion. That's not chump change, even for Disney.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's not substantiated, therefore, by your ridiculous standard, it should not be permitted to be discussed.

Or, alternatively, you could realize that this is a discussion board and the whole point is to discuss possibilities. Sometimes that will involve someone saying something less than flattering about your buddy Bob.

The armchair Imagineering is being discussed in the understood context of speculation and armchair Imagineering. If someone went in saying their speculation was correct and nobody had proof it wasn’t they would absolutely be called out on it.

 

[maxairmike]

I'm just blown away that after years of bemoaning the "sharp pencil boys" and the current corporate/Wall St. mindset that there are people in here advocating for the even more "sharp pencil boy" corporate raider type and listening to the same kind of Wall St. analyst mindset that pushes the "ever increasing quarterly profits at any cost" way of doing business. That's leaving out the side issues that make this an even easier choice if I had a say in it.

The choice is between bad and worse, and we're trying to contort worse into possibly being better in the long term? To me this is like saying Universal Orlando under the later stages of GE and then Black Rock was actually thriving. I'm no Iger enthusiast, but thinking Peltz and crew would save the company and bring it back to whatever your idea of its golden age would be is nuts.

 

[James Alucobond]

It's not substantiated, therefore, by your ridiculous standard, it should not be permitted to be discussed.

Or, alternatively, you could realize that this is a discussion board and the whole point is to discuss possibilities. Sometimes that will involve someone saying something less than flattering about your buddy Bob.

The threads are framed completely differently and serve different purposes. One is explicitly stated to be based on a tip or rumor, and the entire purpose of the thread is to talk about wishes or possibilities until a formal announcement has been made. This thread is about news related to the board, and a very real vote is currently ongoing during which you are trying to amplify unsubstantiated rumors.

 

[Brian]

The armchair Imagineering is being discussed in the understood context of speculation and armchair Imagineering. If someone went in saying their speculation was correct and nobody had proof it wasn’t they wouldn’t absolutely be called out on it.

If I call my statement about Iger and Co. possibly paying influencers off to endorse him and their board candidates "armchair imagineering," would that make it OK in your book?

The threads are framed completely differently and serve different purposes. One is explicitly stated to be based on a tip or rumor, and the entire purpose of the thread is to talk about wishes or possibilities until a formal announcement has been made. This thread is about news related to the board, and a very real vote is currently ongoing during which you are trying to amplify unsubstantiated rumors.

Moving the goalposts, are we? I'll go ahead and edit my original post to clarify that it is purely speculative, even though it was already incredibly clear it was never meant to be taken as absolute fact. That should solve the problem.

Edit: Done.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Pause it for clarification on where and how it will be spent in order to ensure good shareholder return, if I understand it correctly. That's not unreasonable for $60 billion. That's not chump change, even for Disney.

You again ignored that they called it “whopping”, as in exceptionally large. That’s not a positive description.

Attractions are a bad return on investment. That’s been a central problem to Disney’s operation of Walt Disney World since the mid-90s. It’s why Disney’s Animal Kingdom, Disney’s California Adventure, Walt Disney Studios Park and Hong Kong Disneyland we’re all built as cut down half day parks. That’s why Wall Street has not liked the parks business. It’s why Rasulo was focused on trying to build hotels outside of the park resorts. They’re outright saying it’s a negative and you’re here going “maybe not”.

If I call my statement about Iger and Co. possibly paying influencers off to endorse him and their board candidates "armchair imagineering," would that make it OK in your book?

No because it’s still the “just asking questions” nonsense.

 

[Jrb1979]

You again ignored that they called it “whopping”, as in exceptionally large. That’s not a positive description.

Attractions are a bad return on investment. That’s been a central problem to Disney’s operation of Walt Disney World since the mid-90s. It’s why Disney’s Animal Kingdom, Disney’s California Adventure, Walt Disney Studios Park and Hong Kong Disneyland we’re all built as cut down half day parks. That’s why Wall Street has not liked the parks business. It’s why Rasulo was focused on trying to build hotels outside of the park resorts. They’re outright saying it’s a negative and you’re here going “maybe not”.


No because it’s still the “just asking questions” nonsense.

That sounds familiar.




That's right, Iger is doing the same thing.

Why is it if your against Bobby you're automatically for Peltz? I think they both need to go. Don't let Bobby pick the next guy. He sucked at the first time.