Of course not, but Peltz is particularly bad and has a history of brutal cuts and diverting investment to create short term gains for shareholders. Those aren’t things that help fix the problems we all see. Had the right person done this, they likely would have succeeded, but a greed driven corporate raider trying to sell Rasulo as viable while parroting Perlmutter was not it.
Just to be clear: Peltz is a raider…a pompous dolt…and angry in his old age. He fits the palm beach scene perfectly.
By any chance did you miss what Peltz said about Iger's planned investment in the parks? It wasn't, "He should spend more," that's for sure. If you want someone who will promote better parks, Peltz was never your man.
You have zero evidence that he actually wanted that. How would he know what the parks 'were'? He has no foggy-a clue.
The board should all be moving in one direction, thats kind of the point. They shouldn't be 'at odds' with the direction of the company.
Yes, but your original point on this topic seemed to intimate that they were making the majority of their revenue in the same sectors as Disney operates, making them comparable in that regard.
Billionaire Peltz will be 82 . I would not bet the farm on him .
Save Disney spearheaded by Roy and Stanley forced Eisner to resign.
I agree…but the board is the way investors have a say. This is really about Iger, chapek, and a strategy that isn’t working. That was the point of the proxy.
Thanks for the history lesson.
The board is there to protect the interest of shareholders. Having two wildly different 'factions' on the board does not do that.
You seem to be trying to make two different points at the same time.
I'm sure you know Save Disney was pushed (and possibly secretly funded) by Roberts because Comcast's unsolicited bid to buy Disney was shut down by Eisner. He got in Roy's ear and convinced him that Comcast taking control was the right thing, and thats why the whole 'Save Disney' campaign got started.
Eh, this is over with. Especially with Peltz.
Peltz failed miserably, as expected this go round. But there's now blood in the water and if Disney is in the same malaise it's in now, a year from now, it's going to be open season for board seats.
There is no evidence that any of that process has even started. This is likely because all of the internal candidates are not good for the job. It is much more likely that you see yet another contract extension for Bob.
When the main qualification for the next CEO is, "which of these choices is most like Bob", the one that actually is Bob will win every time.
If an incumbent in a political race only gets 70% support of their party, they historically lose the general election (see, Carter ‘80, Bush ‘92).
If the stock goes up more, it will not even be an issue. Remember, its gained 50% in 6 months.
In the article you posted:
If the only voters in this case were Iger supporters, yes. But that isn't the case. Its ALL voters.
Save Disney made him leave. Do your research on how Roy Disney and Stanley Gold forced Eisner to leave.
