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

[WaltWiz1901]

Oh come on, who is welcoming the destruction of Disney? I want a boardroom shakeup to save Disney, not destroy it. Why else would I be on this forum? I wish Disney didn't stink right now. But hopefully it gets better.

I want Disney to get better as much as the next guy...but Peltz and his duo of cronies are not the answer

 

[Brian]

Why do you think “bring back the guy we know is awful but will maybe give less power this time” is even a slightly compelling position?

I'm getting vertigo from all the circles we're going around in. For me, it's not about Rasulo or Peltz themselves, it's about changing the dynamic in the boardroom.

At best, maximizing for short term stock gains to make a hefty profit for themselves and all shareholders, at the possible expense of long term company health.

FTFY

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm getting vertigo from all the circles we're going around in. For me, it's not about Rasulo or Peltz themselves, it's about changing the dynamic in the boardroom.

So the whole stuff about them changing was what?

 

[James Alucobond]

I'm getting vertigo from all the circles we're going around in. For me, it's not about Rasulo or Peltz themselves, it's about changing the dynamic in the boardroom.

Do you regularly re-hire coworkers who were awful at their jobs into slightly less powerful roles just to shake up team dynamics?

 

[Brian]

So the whole stuff about them changing was what?

The narrative that some are pushing is that the company as we know it today will cease to exist within days of Peltz (and maybe Rasulo) being elected to the board. My position is that's a bunch of hogwash, and that it's indeed possible for Rasulo to be flexible and adaptable to changing business climates to take a different stance than he did nearly 20 years ago when he took over as P&R chairman.

 

[Brian]

Do you regularly re-hire coworkers who were awful at their jobs into slightly less powerful roles just to shake up team dynamics?

It's not everyday team dynamics, it's the very top of the company, and they have failed the shareholders and the company at large. So in this case, it would be appropriate.

What else are we going to do? Catapult Iger and his yesmen on the board out of his private shower?

 

[JoeCamel]

Do you regularly re-hire coworkers who were awful at their jobs into slightly less powerful roles just to shake up team dynamics?

Saw them do it on AX Men several times but that is a different arena

 

[JoeCamel]

It's not everyday team dynamics, it's the very top of the company, and they have failed the shareholders and the company at large. So in this case, it would be appropriate.

What else are we going to do? Catapult Iger and his yesmen on the board out of his private shower?

How have they failed shareholders? Price is $15 above 2018 so opportunity lost?
Yeah it went up and now it is back to "normal" levels which is a poor investment but not a failure. They spent a boatload on propping streaming up and buying eyeballs plus content. Might be poised for growth but not a failure.
I wouldn't choose to own this stock as there are better options available but the pension funds are happy to hold it so not a failure.
If it failed they would have sold

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The question is ultimately pointless. Most people aren’t saying that they know with absolute certainty what the precise result of putting Peltz and Rasulo on the board would be, just that it is a cosmically bad idea to put them in any sort of position where they might be able to achieve their goals since we absolutely do know what their aim is and how they operate.

Actually a lot of people on threads involving this whole affair have been saying with certainly that Peltz will strip TWDC down to the bones…with 8.5% of the boardroom vote

…in…like…fire and brimstone type terms

 

[James Alucobond]

The narrative that some are pushing is that the company as we know it today will cease to exist within days of Peltz (and maybe Rasulo) being elected to the board. My position is that's a bunch of hogwash, and that it's indeed possible for Rasulo to be flexible and adaptable to changing business climates to take a different stance than he did nearly 20 years ago when he took over as P&R chairman.

You’re making it more dramatic in your head. The narrative is simply that it’s not smart to put people into board seats when their demonstrable intent (based on public statements, past precedent, etc.) is antithetical to the long-term health of the company. Doomsday doesn’t have to happen tomorrow (or even happen at all) for it to be a massively bad idea.

You keep asking people to explain tangential things to you when the entire premise—that we should ever put these people who have been awful for this and other companies on the board because flailing is all we feel we can do—is nonsense.

 

[JoeCamel]

Actually a lot of people on threads involving this whole affair have been saying with certainly that Peltz will strip TWDC down to the bones…with 8.5% of the boardroom vote

…in…like…fire and brimstone type terms

He is an infection that must be doused in antiseptic on a regular basis to prevent his rot from spreading

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The parks were certainly not thriving under Rasulo. That's probably the nadir period for them in most people's eyes.

Rasulo also hasn't been CEO and that's clearly what this is pitched to be.

Whether it is complete destruction is pedantic. He will make the company worse... why do we want that? Like I said a while ago, I almost feel like we have come full circle that people will start thinking Chapek for CEO round two is the solution.

Why are you cheering for someone who we know carries all of your least favourite Iger qualities and a few more sprinkled on top? How is that bettering the company?

I’m always intrigued when so much power is assigned to P&R heads. In many ways it’s the most useless management position.
They are incharge of making sure the piggy banks operate as piggy banks…they don’t authorize construction, pricing, policy, planning, etc.

It’s a big reason why they are always listed as “candidates” to take over…
…but…just…no

You clearly do not remember the Rasulo Years. Heres a little taste.
View attachment 776149
View attachment 776150View attachment 776151View attachment 776152



View attachment 776153
I do not want the man behind that anywhere near leadership of the company.

That was greenlit by Michael D Eisner…he’s not coming back

 

[BrianLo]

To those who would ask why support Peltz if he would only be one of 12 directors and can't get a ton done on his own, or with he and Rasulo:


-Paulina Likos
CNBC; January 18, 2024

He would be even more held back as one member out of 12 on a board. In other words, even less able to effectuate the policies you abhor.

Brian… you are literally contradicting yourself again.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

He is an infection that must be doused in antiseptic on a regular basis to prevent his rot from spreading

He may be…

The problem is the current board is gangrenous and has already lost a couple of toes

 

[Tha Realest]

Why would we want to shake up the leadership that gives us stuff like this?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Brian… you are literally contradicting yourself again.

Not really…the first was a quote.
The second more of an assessment

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Why would we want to shake up the leadership that gives us stuff like this?

Yeah…what in the Sam of hells is that?

They had to fire the Japanese drummers and the chair balancing French guy…but that gets the greenlight?

Must be college program

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why would we want to shake up the leadership that gives us stuff like this?

Do you think this sort of offering is developed at the board level? Do you think the board should be involved in small live entertainment offerings at the parks?

 

[mikejs78]

The narrative that some are pushing is that the company as we know it today will cease to exist within days of Peltz (and maybe Rasulo) being elected to the board

No one is saying that. We are saying that their presence will have a detrimental effect on the long term health of the company, and that it is the stated goal of the person backing both of them to break up the company.

it's indeed possible for Rasulo to be flexible and adaptable to changing business climates to take a different stance than he did nearly 20 years ago when he took over as P&R chairman.

Sure. Anything is possible. But do you put someone up in a position of power based on a hunch when there is no tangible evidence to the contrary? Would you hire a CEO who had a history of running companies into the ground as a CEO because they said they had changed?

Plus, it would be one thing if Rasulo had said he'd changed and surrounded himself with people like Matt Ouimet or Tony Baxter. But instead he's surrounded himself with a predatory investor with a history of doing harm to companies, along with a financial backer who was known for pushing value engineering and cost cutting across all divisions at Disney, and who very recently stated that his goal was to break up the company and take pieces of it for himself to run.

 

[James Alucobond]

If Iger fires himself now and reappears in 5 years as a candidate in a proxy battle, I'm sure everyone pushing for Peltz and Rasulo now will be totally on board with bringing Iger back to shake things up.