WoundedDreamer
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why it's so difficult a concept for you to grasp that they didn't say "no comment."
You're the one who seems to be seeing "no comment" when it doesn't exist at all...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
You're the one who seems to be seeing "no comment" when it doesn't exist at all...
WoundedDreamer
Well-Known Member
I still think the most significant thing they've announced since maybe the Fox Acquisition or Disney+, is the sports streaming service joint venture. The implosion of the cable networks is accelerating and it's going to be painful. Iger and Company have had the opportunity to jettison ESPN, but now it seems like they're doubling down and they're going to ride it out.
This is a more unpredictable and bold move than Disney+ ever was. Disney+ felt natural (even overdue!) when they announced it. This service's future is far murkier. The streaming service faces several significant hurdles. One of which is regulators. Lachlan Murdoch feels confident about getting regulatory approval, so hopefully that will go well.
The next hurdle is the price and uptake. I doubt Fox, Disney, or Warner-Discovery are interested in an extensive cash-burn phase. They've been there and done that, and they're going to want to achieve profitability as rapidly as possible. That means high prices. While nothing has been announced, various analysts and journalists have predicted it will be in the $35-$40 range. That's not inconceivably expensive, but if someone has Disney+, Netflix, Apple, Prime, etc. it's starting to get pricey. That might not matter in a few years as streaming consolidation (mercifully!) might start occurring. However, those rather steep prices could limit initial adoption.
Then there's the monetization problem. I imagine they're planning to leverage ads extensively on this streaming service. I don't think the math works without a robust ad business similar to what we're accustomed with in cable TV. That will be a key way in which they attain profitability. It does stink to have to pay that much and still have ads, but the rebuttal could easily be "have you ever heard of cable?" It's a fair rebuttal.
Then there are other worries related to their legacy cable business. This will likely accelerate the decline, creating uncertainty for ad buyers and increased costs in the short-term. Longterm, Craig Moffett observes two dangers this sports streaming service creates:
1) “The distributors have been begging for the right to offer cheaper and skinnier bundles, especially bundles that would segregate expensive sports from cheaper non-sports programming, for at least two decades, and they’ve been met with a brick wall...”
2) “At the very least, this would seem to violate the most favored nation clauses that prohibit the programmers from offering better terms and conditions to another distributor, even if that distributor is a JV [joint venture] of the programmers themselves. I would be surprised if there aren’t some lawsuits.”
Both these problems are significant. If this sports streaming venture accidentally triggers the creation of skinny bundles that exclude sports content, the sports revenue would decline more rapidly than originally projected. Moreover, there are questions about the contractual ability of the entire project. I doubt that these are deal breakers, but they are hurdles and headaches that will need to be handled delicately.
Then there's the disgruntled sports leagues, who are frustrated with ESPN. Apparently, the NFL was exploring taking an ownership interest in ESPN. I'm hopeful they can smooth out the relationship, but it's another complexity to add.
Just a lot of moving parts to consider with this sports streaming service. It could end up being very successful, or it could end up being an expensive mistake. I think it's the thing that clouds Disney's future the most.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
I am saying that the COVID-tied cancellations are not, as yet, indicative of some broader trend and therefore shouldn’t be used as exemplars of business as usual. You can think anything you want about whether it’s ultimately being used as a massive excuse, but it is not an excuse they can reasonably employ again. Patterns should be gleaned from when things are functioning normally, not when there’s a total shutdown of the business.
el_super
Well-Known Member
It's a little unfair. They are going to announce new stuff. You can wait awhile before condemning them.
mikejs78
Premium Member
Cedar Fair is now owned by Six Flags. Let's see how that goes.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
Wrong Cedar Fair is majority owner. They are just using the Six Flags name as more people know that name versus Cedar Fair
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Offering Cedar Fair as a favorable contrast to Disney is an absolute riot.
Dollywood is wonderful, but that's because of Dolly - its not a situation that can be reproduced. As much as I love it, that park's additions are much, much less costly in times of cash and time then anything at Disney.
Dollywood is wonderful, but that's because of Dolly - its not a situation that can be reproduced. As much as I love it, that park's additions are much, much less costly in times of cash and time then anything at Disney.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Didn't say they did actually say "no comment", what I said was they said something akin to "no comment".I'm not sure why it's so difficult a concept for you to grasp that they didn't say "no comment."
You're the one who seems to be seeing "no comment" when it doesn't exist at all...
Its not difficult to understand at all.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
I never was trying to make a favourable contrast to Disney. My point was those parks understand that parks need constant additions. That's all.
mikejs78
Premium Member
Barely. Ownership doesn't matter all that much. My wife once worked for Thomson Financial, part of Thomson corporation. Thomson bought out Reuters and changed the name to Thomson Reuters. Even though Thomson was the majority owner, within two years, almost all the Thomson people were out and the Reuters people had taken over.
In this case we have an almost even split in ownership, with the CEO of Cedar Fair becoming CEO of the new company, but the CEO of Six Flags becoming executive chairman. Matt Ouimet is gone. Jury is out.
SamusAranX
Well-Known Member
I’m not condemning them for now. I’ve already expressed mild confidence that AK is finally getting a move on
I’m expressing disappointment in their awful, bare bones EPCOT “revamp” and other cuts that Covid gave them a convenient off ramp for.
mikejs78
Premium Member
Cuts which all happened under the previous CEO.
Look at the pattern - 2015-2020 - significant expansion at WDW. 2020-2022 - cuts with a different CEO, cancellations, no new development announced.
Just a little over a year after Iger returned as CEO, it looks like they are starting significant expansion again.
WoundedDreamer
Well-Known Member
Except it's not "akin" to no comment at all.
el_super
Well-Known Member
There are always going to be some projects you don't like. Every addition can't appeal to everyone.
If EPCOT is really lackluster and there is money to be made by adding more, they will add it. They have to respond equally to market conditions and fan desires and shareholder desires to find the right balance. They have been, historically, pretty good at it.
You think Peltz will *only* remind Iger of the promises that us park fans like?
Peltz will also remind Iger to do all the things that park fans don't like. E.g., Peltz thought spending $60B on parks and experiences was a bad idea without first doing a Return On Investment study.
Under Peltz "value engineering" won't just happen because one project cost more than they budgeted and had to reduce the scope of a build or cut another one entirely. Peltz on the board will be constantly goading Iger to take a "value engineering" stance before the first budgeted dollar is spent.
This is so Peltz can pocket the money saved in the form of dividends.
He wants dividends. He's made numerous public statements about it. He'll be "reminding" Bob to give out as much dividends as possible. Even to make up for the COVID years without dividends.
Peltz wants to squeeze Disney dry.
He's not going to be reminding Iger, "Don't forget, the Orlando parks need more capacity!"
That's just a fevered dream fueled by emotional hate of Iger that will only lead to greater pain.
Peltz isn't on the side of park fans.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Closer than this “confirmation” non-denial that you cooked up.Except it's not "akin" to no comment at all.
Slpy3270
Well-Known Member
US pension fund CalPERS backs Peltz, Rasulo in Disney board battle
NEW YORK (Reuters) -The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) said on Friday it voted to elect activist investment firm Trian Fund Management's two director candidates to Walt Disney's board, in one of the most closely watched and expensive battles for corporate control...
Yeah I don't see Iger winning this thing. Why he's not thinking about leaving right now is a mystery.
(CALPers owns a larger share than New York Retirement Systems BTW.)
Last edited:
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
A lot of people here are going to lose something they love and a few will get a bit of sick pleasure.US pension fund CalPERS backs Peltz, Rasulo in Disney board battle
NEW YORK (Reuters) -The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) said on Friday it voted to elect activist investment firm Trian Fund Management's two director candidates to Walt Disney's board, in one of the most closely watched and expensive battles for corporate control...finance.yahoo.com
Yeah I don't see Iger winning this thing. Why he's not thinking about leaving right now is a mystery.
(CALPers owns a larger share than New York Retirement Systems BTW.)
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
But what he's saying is not that he wants to get on the board to make sure Iger lavishes all that money on the parks. What he's saying is that he wants to use his position to more strictly evaluate the return on investment of those plans, ie. are they worth doing for the amount of extra money they will bring in.
So, far from being a voice in favour of opening the spigot and letting the dollars flow toward the parks, he is promising to take a step back and re-evaluate all the promised investments which is far more likely to lead to the delays and cancellations everyone is complaining about.
Slpy3270
Well-Known Member
The fact that someone like CalPERS is voting for Peltz and Rasulo in spite of the stock price continuing to rise should give you more reason to suspect that Iger's actions and stock analyst upgrades are not the reason for the price rising nor is it going to help him.
No matter which way you look at it, Iger's endorsements and his attacks on Trian are backfiring, because it turns out investors want disruption, even if it's disruptive.
No matter which way you look at it, Iger's endorsements and his attacks on Trian are backfiring, because it turns out investors want disruption, even if it's disruptive.