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

[Brian]

Brian… you are literally contradicting yourself again.

Are we playing this game again?

He can shakeup the dynamic of the boardroom by simply being a member and being able to speak up and interrupt when the Iger yesmen (of which are there are many) start doing the yesmen routine. That does not mean that he could then go direct ESPN, ABC, and the theme parks to be sold off, or even direct any of the day-to-day decision making of the company, like Rasulo was able to effectuate in his enormously influential position as CFO and chairman of P&R before that.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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?

…doing a half @$$ed construction project, strangling the maintenance budgets for 10 years and hatching genie may have been

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

That would depend on what happens between now and then?

Everything since the snap has kinda sucked

 

[mikejs78]

FTFY

Sure. Like diverting most of the $17b allocated for WDW from attractions and new lands to DVC. That would maybe benefit shareholders in the short term and would be good ROI, but would be disastrous in the long term.

 

[Brian]

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.

No shakeup would be necessary because a majority of the board and C Suite would still be constituted of Iger yesmen. His ghost will haunt Team Disney Burbank for decades.

 

[Tha Realest]

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?

I think there should be some form of accountability for stuff like this.

 

[Stripes]

MSN

www.msn.com

UBS wrote Wednesday the “biggest risk” for Disney stock is if Peltz and Rasulo are in fact appointed to the board, as it could cause a “downturn” in Disney shares’ performance as it threatens to erase the “benefits” associated with Disney CEO Bob Iger’s tenure.

Shoutout to the poster that shared this with me.

 

[BrianLo]

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.

I don’t completely disagree. The extremism isn’t helpful to the conversation, though nor is the minimizing.

But I do really want you to address what you think Rasulo can add. His changing from a worse version of Iger to a better version of Iger when it’s less of a reach for Iger to make that smaller ‘change’ doesn’t really seem valid.

I do understand you likely agree with Perlmutter’s views on content and I think that’s an opinion you are allowed to have, I’m not calling you out on that. Is that preference causing you to minimize Rasulo, or do you really think he will meaningfully improve the parks based on his past performance in some way we aren’t seeing?

Honestly if it’s your agreement on content changes outweighing everything else I understand that. I’m just not sure if it’s cognitive dissonance on the everything else aspects or not.

 

[James Alucobond]

No shakeup would be necessary because a majority of the board and C Suite would still be constituted of Iger yesmen. His ghost will haunt Team Disney Burbank for decades.

Do you not think there is still plenty of residual harm from Rasulo?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

Actually a few…one in particular…has been throwing something from
That neighborhood as a binary choice for months…

But what’s gonna happen for the next couple of days is we’ll see a “softening” of that stance as it looks like it could happen.

Then there’ll be a sanctimonious victory lap if Peltz falls short…which I think he will.

See: I just predicted the future

 

[mikejs78]

Are we playing this game again?

He can shakeup the dynamic of the boardroom by simply being a member and being able to speak up and interrupt when the Iger yesmen (of which are there are many) start doing the yesmen routine. That does not mean that he could then go direct ESPN, ABC, and the theme parks to be sold off, or even direct any of the day-to-day decision making of the company, like Rasulo was able to effectuate in his enormously influential position as CFO and chairman of P&R before that.

You know the dynamic of the boardroom? How?

And why would it be a good idea to "shake up the dynamic of the boardroom" in a direction that is antithetical to the long-term health of the company? What if Peltz is persuasive and persuades a number of board members to vote to suspend investment in Disney Parks? Or persuades a number to divert money from attractions to more DVC or new non-park resorts?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Sure. Like diverting most of the $17b allocated for WDW from attractions and new lands to DVC. That would maybe benefit shareholders in the short term and would be good ROI, but would be disastrous in the long term.

Woah woah woah

Who told you $17 for “from attractions and new lands”?

 

[BrianLo]

Are we playing this game again?

He can shakeup the dynamic of the boardroom by simply being a member and being able to speak up and interrupt when the Iger yesmen (of which are there are many) start doing the yesmen routine. That does not mean that he could then go direct ESPN, ABC, and the theme parks to be sold off, or even direct any of the day-to-day decision making of the company, like Rasulo was able to effectuate in his enormously influential position as CFO and chairman of P&R before that.

I think your first post was just out of context because you aimed it at the broader anti Peltz contingent, when it needed to be aimed at some of the pro peltz contigent. The Anti Peltz contingent doesn’t need convincing that Peltz can have an impact.

I agree that the truth is somewhere more in the middle. Depending on how badly theoretically he would be stonewalled by the board. I’d also be flabbergasted if Rasulo has enough votes though, so that’s really moot. It would be against basically every recommendation.

 

[James Alucobond]

Then there’ll be a sanctimonious victory lap if Peltz falls short…which I think he will.

There will probably be relief, but I doubt most of the active folks here will be doing a victory lap when it's just about playing defense for something already significantly diminished.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think there should be some form of accountability for stuff like this.

Sure but not anywhere near the board level. The company as a whole needs less micromanaging, not more.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There will probably be relief, but I doubt most of the active folks here will be doing a victory lap when it's just about playing defense for something already significantly diminished.

…you’re selling them short

For me…there is no good outcome. Just more pomp and circumstance for another year and then ANOTHER contract extension

 

[Brian]

I don’t completely disagree. The extremism isn’t helpful to the conversation, though nor is the minimizing.

But I do really want you to address what you think Rasulo can add. His changing from a worse version of Iger to a better version of Iger when it’s less of a reach for Iger to make that smaller ‘change’ doesn’t really seem valid.

I do understand you likely agree with Perlmutter’s views on content and I think that’s an opinion you are allowed to have, I’m not calling you out on that. Is that preference causing you to minimize Rasulo, or do you really think he will meaningfully improve the parks based on his past performance in some way we aren’t seeing?

Honestly if it’s your agreement on content changes outweighing everything else I understand that. I’m just not sure if it’s cognitive dissonance on the everything else aspects or not.

I appreciate your inquiry.

I do agree with Perlmutter's views on content, but that is a discussion which has been implied by the moderators we should not be having here, so I'll welcome a debate on that topic in my PMs.

As for Rasulo, I do think he has something to bring to the table. I maintain that it is possible his views on the parks may have shifted in the last 20 years since he was appointed chairman, and in light of the dramatic shift in the business climate that segment has seen. Guests demand new experiences at the parks, now more than ever, and it simply would not be sustainable to cut that out entirely, nor could he as one (or maybe two with Peltz) vote on the board.

If those views have in fact changed with the times, as I suspect they might, he could end up being an excellent addition to the board, insofar as he "shakes up" the dynamic in the boardroom, is not an Iger yesman, which would be tremendously beneficial as we await the thrilling conclusion of 'Bobby Part II: Return of the Bob', and can maybe, just maybe, help restore the company's status as adored across America, something which has been lost in recent years due to issues we cannot discuss here (again, PMs are open for that).

EDIT: Rereading this, I don't know if I like 'Bobby Part II: Return of the Bob' or 'Bobby Part II: The Bob Strikes Back' more

 

[mikejs78]

…you’re selling them short

For me…there is no good outcome. Just more pomp and circumstance for another year and then ANOTHER contract extension

I'll bet you a beer Iger is no longer CEO by the end of 2026. I think he and everyone knows that he can't extend his contract again.

 

[Brian]

I think he and everyone knows that he can't extend his contract again.

Why not? The current board would love it. He can die in that private shower of his if he felt so inclined.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why not? The current board would love it. He can die in that private shower of his if he felt so inclined.

This is why nobody is buying your change narrative. Small changes already occurring: impossible. Seismic changes with no evidence: likely.