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

[Stripes]

What's the worst that can reasonably happen in that regard if Peltz were to win?

You don’t put someone on the board if you have to ask questions like that.

 

[Jrb1979]

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.

Can you not be anti Bobby and and anti Peltz too. It's not an either or. They both need to go and the board as well.

 

[maxairmike]

Can you not be anti Bobby and and anti Peltz too. It's not an either or. They both need to go and the board as well.

Sure, but that's not the option presented at the moment and not realistic, so any discussion in that direction is not productive or very reasonable. It's more akin to a Blue Sky discussion, which this is not.

 

[Ayla]

Can you not be anti Bobby and and anti Peltz too. It's not an either or. They both need to go and the board as well.

It is an either/or in this instance.

 

[BrianLo]

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

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.

He is right. So I’d love if you can bring me around to your internal logic that his proposal is to… delay investment?

The trouble we are constantly pointing out to you is that he says the optimal things (which you take fully at face value), but if you actually evaluate his plans… they don’t actually change or address the criticisms. Peltz is in fact largely happy with most of what they are doing and wants to make a few alterations that the company is wisely ignoring.

Control content. Reign back in planned parks spending. Politically shift the company. Fire Feige. Install Rasulo as CEO down the road. I take it you are for those changes.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You don’t put someone on the board if you have to ask questions like that.

They’ve had a bunch of clowns on the board
Alwyn baskin never met a business he couldn’t bankrupt and Cheryl Sandberg said some of the DUMBEST things ever as she showed herself the door

So not sure the existential threat is that much more?

 

[Casper Gutman]

This seems again short sighted. Peltz triples down on his non desire to remove Iger and says stable CEO’s are positive for the company. The only executive he questions the future of is Kevin Feige.

Peltz’s approach to his own succession:
But Peltz says he’s not ready to name his successor — “I’m not going anywhere, girl. I’ve got no plans to move. I love what I do and a succession plan will evolve when I leave but I’m going to leave with a fight . . . with whatever is pulling me away.”

Do as I say and not as I do?

The three core tenants we felt Peltz could help from our perspective is succession planning, and yet he has no skill set in it and seemingly wants Iger to continue to stay.

The second is content planning. Yet he has no personal insight into it. His creative he has aligned with is maligned (Perlmutter) and has now clarified the approach has not in fact had a change of heart. It’s also clear the goal is to push Kevin Feige (the most successful producer of all time). I’m not on board with it, but I’d respect posters more if they said they agreed with Perlmutter view on content rather than suggesting a change of heart it is clear is not the case. I doubt Peltz independently reached the same modern conclusion on Black Panther days ago. Perlmutter has doubled down, Feige out, cut diversity. If that’s what posters are after, own that.

The third is regarding investment. Even other Brian above has acknowledged they plan to further delay and defer investments to evaluate them. Even the most optimistic read is not suggestive that his strategy is to increase / encourage investment increases beyond 60billion. I think most of us read it as a mandate to reduce spend beyond the proposal. I think no one read it as Peltz increasing to 70-80. And again his advisor on the decision making of how to invest it is Rasulo. Who understands monetizing parks in a way that I think there is near agreement on this forum is not lavish rides or the type of investment posters hope for.



I truly, truly think we’re at a tipping point that if a few of you had the offer, you’d accept a return to Bob Chapek to displace Iger. Because really that’s nearly the offer on the table. It’s all just obsessive and contingent on undertaking one man, who ironically is actually on your side this time.

Pushing out the most successful producer in Hollywood history to salve the ego of a twisted old bigot - surely the kind of results-oriented leadership Disney needs.

Marvels recent problems are caused by too little Feige, not too much. To his credit, Iger understands this.

 

[Jrb1979]

Sure, but that's not the option presented at the moment and not realistic, so any discussion in that direction is not productive or very reasonable. It's more akin to a Blue Sky discussion, which this is not.

I'm against Peltz too. I'm not going to defend Iger like many in this thread are doing. I can't believe any of you still think Iger is good for the company. He's been terrible for the parks.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It is an either/or in this instance.

I think this is the big problem on these threads…it’s not true

 

[Brian]

He is right. So I’d love if you can bring me around to your internal logic that his proposal is to… delay investment?.

Put the investment on hold for a short while in order to ensure that the money is spent in a way that maximizes shareholder ROI. In other words, still spending it, but ensuring that it is spent responsibly.

 

[peter11435]

Put the investment on hold for a short while in order to ensure that the money is spent in a way that maximizes shareholder ROI. In other words, still spending it, but ensuring that it is spent responsibly.

In other words. Ensure it will make Peltz richer.

I really need to you to understand… he doesn’t care about Disney, its products, it’s quality, it’s future, it’s legacy, it’s guests, its consumers, or it’s cast.

 

[Brian]

In other words. Ensure it will make Peltz richer.

I really need to you to understand… he doesn’t care about Disney, its products, it’s quality, it’s future, it’s legacy, it’s guests, its consumers, or it’s cast.

What is the purpose of a publicly traded company if not to generate returns for its shareholders?

By the way, it would also make Iger, Lucas, Abigail Disney, and every member of the board richer.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

In other words. Ensure it will make Peltz richer.

I really need to you to understand… he doesn’t care about Disney, its products, it’s quality, it’s future, it’s legacy, it’s guests, its consumers, or it’s cast.

Of course he doesn’t care. But that doesn’t mean you leave Mr. Screwup to do what he wants

 

[Jrb1979]

In other words. Ensure it will make Peltz richer.

I really need to you to understand… he doesn’t care about Disney, its products, it’s quality, it’s future, it’s legacy, it’s guests, its consumers, or it’s cast.

Agreed but neither is your hero Bobby. Can we stop making it out like Bobby and his clan is the almighty. He's just as bad.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Agreed but neither is your hero Bobby. Can we stop making it out like Bobby and his clan is the almighty. He's just as bad.

Why the constant mischaracterization?

 

[peter11435]

Agreed but neither is your hero Bobby. Can we stop making it out like Bobby and his clan is the almighty. He's just as bad.

I haven’t defended Iger or claimed he was “the almighty.”

 

[peter11435]

By the way, it would also make Iger, Lucas, Abigail Disney, and every member of the board richer.

Which really should tell you something about their opposition…

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Why the constant mischaracterization?

Because people are supporting him doing exactly what he wants…and you won’t be disappointed. Gonna get exactly that

 

[Brian]

Which really should tell you something about their opposition…

To clarify, do you think that Peltz on the board would increase shareholder value?

 

[BrianLo]

Can you not be anti Bobby and and anti Peltz too. It's not an either or. They both need to go and the board as well.

Honestly, it seems most posters here are. The lunacy comes to those who seem to feel the solution to Iger is Peltz. The solution to something you are against isn’t a worse version of it.

What's the worst that can reasonably happen in that regard if Peltz were to win?

I think from your perspective he pushes the board to extend Iger. That is in fact what he is indirectly now saying. It’s not about Iger, it’s more about stability and the mismanaged sudden previous succession planning. He wants a plan, even if that plan is an Iger extension to advise a new CEO in a more controlled manner. One such as Rasulo (which now seems incredibly unlikely if the latter can’t get on the board).