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

[Brian]

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.

I don't want to mince words, but "whopping" is meant to invoke the magnitude of the sum of money. Again, even for Disney, $60 billion is no small sum. That is quite a major investment.

When discussing Disney's lack of fiscal discipline as part of their rationale for board seats, it would be reasonable to call out the size of that sum as an item they would focus their efforts on to ensure reasonable shareholder return.

Attractions are a bad return on investment if one takes the narrow-minded view of "this new ride won't generate any money." Of course, the majority of guests visit the parks and spend money on resort stays, parking, merchandise, food and more because of the attractions.

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

imagine how much more profitable WDW would’ve been if they had added capacity instead of the hundreds of millions given to GS and all those terrible films over the last two years.

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

Even if Peltz accomplishes all he’s seeking now,‘it’s unlikely he has a negligible presence on the board. But Bob will be wounded and it will hasten his exit and diminish his influence. That’s why I hope he succeeds to some degree. Igerism must end.

 

[lazyboy97o]

imagine how much more profitable WDW would’ve been if they had added capacity instead of the hundreds of millions given to GS and all those terrible films over the last two years.

What is the point you are trying to make? I have posts going back years ago the lack of capacity at Walt Disney World.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

What is the point you are trying to make? I have posts going back years ago the lack of capacity at Walt Disney World.

…and who’s responsible for that?

 

[Brian]

…and who’s responsible for that?

Probably whoever the CEO was during that time. I wonder who that was?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't want to mince words, but "whopping" is meant to invoke the magnitude of the sum of money. Again, even for Disney, $60 billion is no small sum. That is quite a major investment.

When discussing Disney's lack of fiscal discipline as part of their rationale for board seats, it would be reasonable to call out the size of that sum as an item they would focus their efforts on to ensure reasonable shareholder return.

Attractions are a bad return on investment if one takes the narrow-minded view of "this new ride won't generate any money." Of course, the majority of guests visit the parks and spend money on resort stays, parking, merchandise, food and more because of the attractions.

It’s a negative phrase. It’s somehow too much and not enough. It’s somehow late but delay is acceptable. It’s all a contradiction.

There is no such contradiction if one long believed that the parks should “diversify” by operating more hotels and more locations.

Whoa there! It's not impropriety or unethical to pay someone to say something nice about you. What do you think "sponsored content" is?

There’s a reason it’s supposed to be disclosed.

 

[peter11435]

imagine how much more profitable WDW would’ve been if they had added capacity instead of the hundreds of millions given to GS and all those terrible films over the last two years.

Funny that it was Jay Rasulo himself who fought against added capacity for years. Lead DLP while not a single new attraction was added to the park. Oversaw the construction of what is objectively the worst, cheapest, and most under built Disney park in the world. Advocated for expensive capacity management systems instead of actual added capacity. And insisted that New Fantasyland be composed primarily of low capacity revenue generating meet and greets.

 

[Brian]

Funny that it was Jay Rasulo himself who fought against added capacity for years. Lead DLP while not a single new attraction was added to the park. Oversaw the construction of what is objectively the worst, cheapest, and most under built Disney park in the world. Advocated for expensive capacity management systems instead of actual added capacity. And insisted that New Fantasyland be composed primarily of low capacity revenue generating meet and greets.

Who did Rasulo report to? I wonder if that guy/gal is still around calling shots.

 

[peter11435]

Who did Rasulo report to? I wonder if that guy/gal is still around calling shots.

Interesting that Iger was not CEO when WDSP was built. He was also still CEO when Rasulos plans for New Fantasyland were drastically altered.

 

[Brian]

It’s a negative phrase. It’s somehow too much and not enough. It’s somehow late but delay is acceptable. It’s all a contradiction.

There is no such contradiction if one long believed that the parks should “diversify” by operating more hotels and more locations.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the meaning of "whopping."

As to the contradiction, one could argue that there is no such contradiction when you consider that the investment is necessary, but ensuring fiscal discipline and good shareholder return on investment (which have not been the priority of the board as of late) is important before it goes forward.

There’s a reason it’s supposed to be disclosed.

Supposed to be, but isn't.

 

[Stripes]

Well, Rasulo is not getting on the board in any case so do we really have to worry or concern ourselves about what he might have done?

 

[Stripes]

As to the contradiction, one could argue that there is no such contradiction when you consider that the investment is necessary, but ensuring fiscal discipline and good shareholder return on investment (which have not been the priority of the board as of late) is important before it goes forward.

When it comes to capital expenditures the company has been pretty consistent in realizing strong ROI over the past 10 years.

 

[Brian]

Interesting that Iger was not CEO when WDSP was built. He was also still CEO when Rasulos plans for New Fantasyland were drastically altered.

He then proceeded to oversee the longest period of stagnation in recent parks history. Surely the buck must stop with the CEO.

Peltz is right about one thing, investment in the parks is indeed "delayed or deferred" and in need of a "catch-up."

 

[peter11435]

Well, Rasulo is not getting on the board in any case so do we really have to worry or concern ourselves about what he might have done?

So we should just ignore Peltz and Rasulo because we think they won’t be successful?

 

[peter11435]

He then proceeded to oversee the longest period of stagnation in recent parks history. Surely the buck must stop with the CEO.

Peltz is right about one thing, investment in the parks is indeed "delayed or deferred" and in need of a "catch-up."

Can you point out exactly when that period of stagnation began and ended?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

He then proceeded to oversee the longest period of stagnation in recent parks history. Surely the buck must stop with the CEO.

Peltz is right about one thing, investment in the parks is indeed "delayed or deferred" and in need of a "catch-up."

Iger did next to nothing from 2005 to 2012…

And here we are - in nothing ville again

 

[Casper Gutman]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the meaning of "whopping."

As to the contradiction, one could argue that there is no such contradiction when you consider that the investment is necessary, but ensuring fiscal discipline and good shareholder return on investment (which have not been the priority of the board as of late) is important before it goes forward.


Supposed to be, but isn't.

Ah, so you’ll agree to disagree on what familiar, commonly used words mean.

By the way, what specifically have been the “priorities of the board as of late?”

 

[Brian]

By the way, what specifically have been the “priorities of the board as of late?”

Pushing out garbage entertainment content lacking in creativity and heart while largely ignoring, or at minimum not giving its due, the segment of the company that actually makes them money (Experiences). The $60 billion in planned investment is a great step in the right direction, but they've yet to do anything publicly beyond showing pie in the sky drawings about what may happen eventually down the line if they want to consider the possibility of doing it, as Trian points out.

 

[maxairmike]

He then proceeded to oversee the longest period of stagnation in recent parks history. Surely the buck must stop with the CEO.

Peltz is right about one thing, investment in the parks is indeed "delayed or deferred" and in need of a "catch-up."

And you (the royal you for all those that seem to be in favor of Peltz & Co.) believe that investment will actually happen in a way that is positive for the parks and us as fans once they have control/a sizable say? I think it's pretty obvious the answer would be no given everything we know about this group. My expectation would be one sizable investment right after a hypothetical win for the immediate PR boost and to say "see, we're doing something!", and then right back to business as usual or worse (I expect a worse version of the current usual).

This (a Peltz & Co. win) is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic as the band plays in the absolute best case scenario, and it amazes me that people have talked themselves into it possibly being any better than that.