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

[lazyboy97o]

I agree with you and love to have the Comcast is perhaps not doing the stellar job they think they are conversation. Or what if Epic misses lofty projections and overruns and we enter a cancellation period in Orlando? Or what if Universal Great Britain starts sucking up all the air in the room? Or what if Epic attractions are sub par? Or what if Disney is expanding and hiring Florida talent as UC enters the typical major post investment phase layoffs… like they are?

But the one track conversation here would lose the plot.

I am all on board for Epic, but time and time again these highs are followed by lows. Maybe Comcast can be the exception?

Right now they are definitely all in on the parks. They’ve built up the teams and are pushing forward. If they manage things well people should be able to transition from Epic to Great Britain just as many transitioned from Beijing to Epic.

My issue was just more the presentation of COVID as something that didn’t really impact Universal. The big thing they did was kept Velocicoaster going but that was more blind luck because it couldn’t easily be paused than it was resolve and faith in the product. Universal did a lot of the same things that Disney did, they just got luck and ended up with a big hit opening in the midst of everything.

 

[James Alucobond]

If he’s just going to support the direction of the current board why are they so opposed to him?

In part because he is also interested in stripping the company for parts and selling the pieces to the highest bidder for even greater short-term returns at the expense of the company’s long-term health. If that’s what you want to support, go ahead, but there is no clear way that would help things in the parks or film divisions, which I would assume most people here care about.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If he’s just going to support the direction of the current board why are they so opposed to him?

He isn’t. He has stated issues, but you should tell us you support those issues. Tell you support further delaying park investment. Tell us you support the board micromanaging film making. Tell us the particulars you support. Don’t just hand wave that he’s going to dissent on things that need dissent when you’ve previously claimed ignorance on his plans.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No, I’m not. I provided context to the environment and said I clearly disagreed with their decisions now. Particularly in hindsight.

You are talking at me again…

I think you sometimes just have a point you want to make and don’t actually respond to other peoples posts. It’s like you’ve extended my conversation without me and then chime in 5 steps later. We agree so I’m not sure why you are framing it like we don’t?

We do not agree on the status quo

That’s the problem in this case

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Which was spearheaded by Roy E. Disney, which as I said, isn't happening again. There are two options as I see it, Iger or Peltz. There is no realistic 3rd option (supporting neither and ousting Iger without some opposite stabilizing power) that doesn't result in a faster, more violent version what is almost certain to happen under Peltz (i.e. selling off most or all parts).

It doesn’t take Roy Disney to not vote for reappoint AND not vote for Peltz

Withholding the vote is the best move

 

[Jrb1979]

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

Every thing you said about Peltz is the same for Iger minus selling off parts of the company.

 

[peter11435]

Every thing you said about Peltz is the same for Iger minus selling off parts of the company.

Not even remotely true.

 

[BrianLo]

We do not agree on the status quo

That’s the problem in this case

Please take this as nothing but some insight. Because I do actually really like you as a poster and this does not bother me personally.

I think you have a really strong inner monologue and progress conversations with posters forward in your head. It’s a skill set, but you often come back and respond to things having advanced the conversation in your mind. The trouble is occasionally you fill in the blanks wrong. For some reason with me you have mischaracterized my perspective and that’s why you keep being surprised when we are aligned, because we always were.

I think other posters have an incredibly hard time understanding what has occurred and what your posts about and that’s why you come off cryptic to them.

There are actually a few other posters who also do this and then start bouncing off each other. Reaching a consensus on a conversation that never happened. This is often how a conversation boils down to the boogeyman of everyone in a thread being an Iger loyalist and yet no one can identify who the loyalist actually is or was, it never happened.



As to what you are responding to, I think we are both aligned in not wanting the status quo. We want aggressive park expansion progression, do we not? Peltz is presenting a status quo option of parks investment by needing another executive to come onboard and reevaluate things ‘again’ to make sure it makes financial sense only. Not creative or consumer sense. Never mind his chosen executive to do so was Rasulo. I don’t support that. Chapek was largely engaging in that behavior in the pandemic and I don’t support it. Why Peltz feels the solution is to do it again I don’t support.

What I think you are talking about is that I made a case for Bob’s historical or current strategy. Or praise of Iger? Or his ongoing placement in the company. It’s a side conversation I wasn’t having. None of those topics were covered in any of the posts you’ve quoted. I think you’ve filled in a few too many blanks. Which is why it comes out like your response is just talking at me.

You often want to have a conversation about Bob Iger, but I wasn’t even talking about him really.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Not even remotely true.

Iger hasn’t slashed costs and cut his customers throats to make cheap bucks?

Seem similar. The difference his he has also spent tons of cash on bad product from within his employee ranks. But does that mean that’s better? Seems to be pouring money down a hole to people who can’t produce.

 

[Stripes]

If he’s just going to support the direction of the current board why are they so opposed to him?

Because there’s concern about his motivations, he lacks ideas, and the few ideas he has shared are asinine. A big mouth in the boardroom spouting nonsense is a costly distraction.

Furthermore, he was so smitten with Disney’s plan (which thus far the company has executed incredibly well) he dropped his proxy fight last year. And, by his own admission, the only reason he’s engaging in a proxy fight this time is because the stock price didn’t increase last year. Any intelligent person would have known it was going to take more than a year to address the issues Disney is facing, particularly the streaming pivot. Which means Peltz thinks the stock is going to soar this year and is here to claim the credit.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Please take this as nothing but some insight. Because I do actually really like you as a poster and this does not bother me personally.

I think you have a really strong inner monologue and progress conversations with posters forward in your head. It’s a skill set, but you often come back and respond to things having advanced the conversation in your mind. The trouble is occasionally you fill in the blanks wrong. For some reason with me you have mischaracterized my perspective and that’s why you keep being surprised when we are aligned, because we always were.

I think other posters have an incredibly hard time understanding what has occurred and what your posts about and that’s why you come off cryptic to them.

There are actually a few other posters who also do this and then start bouncing off each other. Reaching a consensus on a conversation that never happened. This is often how a conversation boils down to the boogeyman of everyone in a thread being an Iger loyalist and yet no one can identify who the loyalist actually is or was, it never happened.



As to what you are responding to, I think we are both aligned in not wanting the status quo. We want aggressive park expansion progression, do we not? Peltz is presenting a status quo option of parks investment by needing another executive to come onboard and reevaluate things ‘again’ to make sure it makes financial sense only. Not creative or consumer sense. Never mind his chosen executive to do so was Rasulo. I don’t support that. Chapek was largely engaging in that behavior in the pandemic and I don’t support it. Why Peltz feels the solution is to do it again I don’t support.

What I think you are talking about is that I made a case for Bob’s historical or current strategy. Or praise of Iger? Or his ongoing placement in the company. It’s a side conversation I wasn’t having. None of those topics were covered in any of the posts you’ve quoted. I think you’ve filled in a few too many blanks. Which is why it comes out like your response is just talking at me.

You often want to have a conversation about Bob Iger, but I wasn’t even talking about him really.

It’s entirely possible all that is true.

And it’s entirely possible the goal is to drive it all home so we don’t convince ourselves “everything is fine”…as we roll up on port orleans for our next stay.

Maybe both

 

[mikejs78]

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).

Because that would be illegal.

 

[BrianLo]

It’s entirely possible all that is true.

And it’s entirely possible the goal is to drive it all home so we don’t convince outselves “everything is fine”…as we roll up on port orleans for our next stay.

Maybe both

Definitely both, want to always hope the next WDW investment Boone is finally around the corner.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The two options are:

1. Iger​

​

2. Iger. With Peltz goading Iger to do more of the things park fans hate and do it to an extreme. Remember, Peltz has twice publicly stated he's not pushing for Iger to leave immediately.​

Example:

​

1. Iger: We're going to spend $60B on parks and experience, with at least $17B going to WDW.​

​

2. Peltz goading Iger: Now wait a minute. We should first do a study to see if we're going to get a good rate of investment on that. [Yes, Peltz said that.]​

People here seem to think 1 dissenting voice would destroy the company ... I see no risk of that.

Peltz is dissenting from spending $60B on parks and experiences. So, good job picking your voice of dissent!

 

[Casper Gutman]

The two options are:

1. Iger​

​

2. Iger. With Peltz goading Iger to do more of the things park fans hate and do it to an extreme. Remember, Peltz has twice publicly stated he's not pushing for Iger to leave immediately.​

Example:

​

1. Iger: We're going to spend $60B on parks and experience, with at least $17B going to WDW.​

​

2. Peltz goading Iger: Now wait a minute. We should first do a study to see if we're going to get a good rate of investment on that. [Yes, Peltz said that.]​

Peltz is dissenting from spending $60B on parks and experiences. So, good job picking your voice of dissent!

He DOES seem eager to push out Feige. He “questions his record.” You know, the most consistently successful record of any producer in the entire history of the movie industry. He goes on to indicate that he specifically questions Feige’s production of films with diverse casts.

This is the person numerous posters want to give power at Disney - a corporate raider who wants to interfere in the creative process and fire an unprecedented hit maker in large part because he made movies with diverse casts (and because his vindictive partner loathes him). It’s absolute madness.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

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

I am appalled to see a respected institution like Axios peddling in conspiracies like this.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

People here seem to think 1 dissenting voice would destroy the company but that’s like saying AOC could implement her green new deal despite the other 11 being drill baby drill types, I see no risk of that.

But having a dissenting opinion could hurt Iger's feelings. Bob needs everyone to agree with him all the time. Or else he might not do as good a job as CEO. Iger is a fragile individual who can't take criticism very well. Putting someone disagreeable on the board is "not only playing with fire but earthquakes and hurricanes as well."

What if Peltz had asked Iger about the wisdom of overpaying for the Fox acquisition by $20 Billion? We might not have the Simpsons on Disney+ today. It would have been a disaster!

 

[Casper Gutman]

I am appalled to see a respected institution like Axios peddling in conspiracies like this.

The “conspiracy” is not that Disney launched a massive PR campaign. It’s that Disney is bribing or coercing prominent people for support. That silly argument is an attempt to discredit any of the many folks speaking on Disneys behalf.

 

[Casper Gutman]

By the way, in the Financial Times article being discussed, his ONLY concrete ideas for Disney are to get “politics out of the boardroom” (his example is continuing to do business in Russia), complain about MCU diversity, promise to keep Iger, and insinuate Feige needs to go. In quite a long article, those are his big ideas.

How many folks have read The Predator’s Ball? Show of hands?

 

[Surferboy567]

He’s bad news in my opinion, I don’t want him or his activist buddies anywhere near the board.

I’m also not championing Iger, but I still think he’s VASTLY better then Peltz.