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

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Okay, the save the magic website he created. He's an investor in Disney so that meeets your requirement, and he wants them to increase spending on the parks.

That was easy.
Bored Season 3 GIF by The Office

With his perfect 20/20 hindsight, he retroactively said they should've spent more in the past after Disney already admitted they should have done so and committed to doing so. On top of that, he said what they committed to spending should be further scrutinized, meaning that he wanted to trim their commitment where possible. He also teamed up with Rasulo, so yeah. Please try again.
 

Dan Deesnee

Well-Known Member
Bored Season 3 GIF by The Office

With his perfect 20/20 hindsight, he retroactively said they should've spent more in the past after Disney already admitted they should have done so and committed to doing so. On top of that, he said what they committed to spending should be further scrutinized, meaning that he wanted to trim their commitment where possible. He also teamed up with Rasulo, so yeah. Please try again.

And he's absolutely right, what they've committed to spending the money ON should be scrutinized.

Are you saying you want more live action remakes, animated sequels, and IP shoved into every corner of the parks? More classic attractions destroyed? More 5+ year build timelines on rides while Universal pumps out an entire new park in 5 years.

Peltz notably said that Disney is over earning on the parks (Nickle and dining guests and cast members at the expense of the brand) in order to make up for it's losses on Disney+ and other areas of the company (terrible box office performance). Do you really disagree with that?

I find it very odd that so many on here want change, and hate the direction Disney has taken with so many things. Yet change comes along, echoing their concerns, and everyone suddenly wants things to stay the same.

I know the response already "Peltz is the wrong change." Understand this, if Peltz got a seat it doesn't mean he's suddenly running the company.

"Perfection is the enemy of progress"

So Peltz is out. What now? We'll get low budget, half baked "lands" and attractions, more over promising and under delivering, and many who opposed Peltz will be back to complaining about Disney and wishing something would change...
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
Peltz notably said that Disney is over earning on the parks (Nickle and dining guests and cast members at the expense of the brand) in order to make up for it's losses on Disney+ and other areas of the company (terrible box office performance). Do you really disagree with that?

Personally? Yeah. I think they are still underpriced for the level of attendance we are seeing.

But really I want to hear the explanation of how the above makes sense. If Peltz was going to stop the overcharging in the parks (lower revenue) and somehow also still spend 60 billion on new park product, what exactly was supposed to be in it for the investors? At that point why would any serious investors vote for him?

So Peltz is out. What now?

The same thing that has always happened. There will be a balance between shareholder needs and customer needs and Disney will find a spot in the middle. The kind of compromise where no one really wins or loses.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
And he's absolutely right, what they've committed to spending the money ON should be scrutinized.

Are you saying you want more live action remakes, animated sequels, and IP shoved into every corner of the parks? More classic attractions destroyed? More 5+ year build timelines on rides while Universal pumps out an entire new park in 5 years.

Peltz notably said that Disney is over earning on the parks (Nickle and dining guests and cast members at the expense of the brand) in order to make up for it's losses on Disney+ and other areas of the company (terrible box office performance). Do you really disagree with that?

I find it very odd that so many on here want change, and hate the direction Disney has taken with so many things. Yet change comes along, echoing their concerns, and everyone suddenly wants things to stay the same.

I know the response already "Peltz is the wrong change." Understand this, if Peltz got a seat it doesn't mean he's suddenly running the company.

"Perfection is the enemy of progress"

So Peltz is out. What now? We'll get low budget, half baked "lands" and attractions, more over promising and under delivering, and many who opposed Peltz will be back to complaining about Disney and wishing something would change...
The " many " who.oppose Peltz was a lost cause. The shareholders spoke loud and clear when all said and done.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
"Perfection is the enemy of progress"
And all change is not growth, as all movement is not forward.

Peltz's motives were incredibly transparent. If you choose to ignore all that he's ever done, who he allied himself with, what the meaning was behind what he said he wanted to do, and how much of a personal grudge he and his associates had against TWDC, then, well, okay. But you can't expect the majority of people to do so.
 

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
Okay, the save the magic website he created. He's an investor in Disney so that meeets your requirement, and he wants them to increase spending on the parks.

That was easy.
He DOES NOT ever advocate for increasing spending on the parks.

He advocates for scrutinizing the $60b promised investments. (So he can later advocate against spending it.)

Those two things are NOT the same. And you really think they are, and you're not just trolling, I feel sad for you.

And if you're talking about him saying 'they should have spent more before' ... then wow, I don't know how to explain to you how you're literally the person that he was trying to target with his BS.
 
Last edited:

LSLS

Well-Known Member
He DOES NOT ever advocate for increasing spending on the parks.

He advocates for scrutinizing the $60b promised investments. (So he can later advocate against spending it.)

Those two things are NOT the same. And you really think they are, and you're not just trolling, I feel sad for you.

And if you're talking about him saying 'they should have spent more before' ... then wow, I don't know how to explain to you how you're literally the person that he was trying to target with his BS.
This right here. Just sneaky wording. He's not saying pay more, he wants to review the creative process, and transparency on what is being spent, and the returns expected on it. The fact he brought in Rasulo should be enough of a red flag.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Peltz made it clear what he wanted: Dividends. He said so quite explicitly. In his own words when asked. That was his main (and probably only) concern.

He thought that was sufficient to get shareholders to vote him in, since, they must be like him, desirous of wads of cash.

Everything he said about 'restore the magic' was a lie, and he eventually dropped that line of blatant falsehood. He didn't care about the parks and couldn't address the parks' needs in an intelligible way. And the guy he was bringing with him for 'park cred' was actually a detriment for anyone who knew anything about the parks.

He tried vilifying Iger and then suddenly stopped that line of attack when he got pushback that people (investors) liked Iger.

He was left with weaksauce attacks on the Board. Attacks on things the Board was already addressing, and couldn't have addressed in the past due to buying Fox and Hulu -- and surviving cord-cutting and the loss of the huge amount of revenue that linear/cable TV brought in.

Not to mentions TWDC was hampered by losing out of $20B in profit that did not materialize because of a world wide pandemic.

Not to mention that Peltz said aloud the pretty racist and misogynist things that Perlmutter believed.

Peltz only made traction with people who blinded themselves to the issues TWDC faced with the pandemic and the major shifts in entertainment. The kind of people who think that Disney has magical reserves of cash and should have just kept everything the same as the world changed. People who are stuck with magical thinking in that what they want to truth to be, they assume it to be true, even when it isn't. Pretty foolish.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
And he's absolutely right, what they've committed to spending the money ON should be scrutinized.

Are you saying you want more live action remakes, animated sequels, and IP shoved into every corner of the parks? More classic attractions destroyed? More 5+ year build timelines on rides while Universal pumps out an entire new park in 5 years.

Peltz notably said that Disney is over earning on the parks (Nickle and dining guests and cast members at the expense of the brand) in order to make up for it's losses on Disney+ and other areas of the company (terrible box office performance). Do you really disagree with that?

I find it very odd that so many on here want change, and hate the direction Disney has taken with so many things. Yet change comes along, echoing their concerns, and everyone suddenly wants things to stay the same.

I know the response already "Peltz is the wrong change." Understand this, if Peltz got a seat it doesn't mean he's suddenly running the company.

"Perfection is the enemy of progress"

So Peltz is out. What now? We'll get low budget, half baked "lands" and attractions, more over promising and under delivering, and many who opposed Peltz will be back to complaining about Disney and wishing something would change...
He didn't want Parks spending scrutinized for quality. He wanted it scrutinized for ROI. His words, not my interpretation. In what way does that focus on "restoring the magic?"

Here's what he wanted for the parks:

  • Parks and Experiences Growth: Execute on a clear vision for Parks targeting at least high-single digit operating income growth to ensure adequate returns on ~$60 billion of capex

Does that sound like someone looking to support meaningful expansion and stop "nickel and diming" guests? How do you measure ROI for a new ride? The easiest way would be through ILL sales. But what about a new land? An E-ticket in the land can have its ROI measured to a certain extent, but a C-ticket really can't - and since a people-eating C-ticket really doesn't have a measurable ROI, what do you think his suggestion would be? Someone demanding measurable growth from investment isn't supporting something like that. And that's before you get to the stuff included in that $60B that really can't be measured for ROI - maintenance.
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
He didn't want Parks spending scrutinized for quality. He wanted it scrutinized for ROI. His words, not my interpretation. In what way does that focus on "restoring the magic?"

Here's what he wanted for the parks:

  • Parks and Experiences Growth: Execute on a clear vision for Parks targeting at least high-single digit operating income growth to ensure adequate returns on ~$60 billion of capex

Does that sound like someone looking to support meaningful expansion and stop "nickel and diming" guests? How do you measure ROI for a new ride? The easiest way would be through ILL sales. But what about a new land? An E-ticket in the land can have its ROI measured to a certain extent, but a C-ticket really can't - and since a people-eating C-ticket really doesn't have a measurable ROI, what do you think his suggestion would be? Someone demanding measurable growth from investment isn't supporting something like that. And that's before you get to the stuff included in that $60B that really can't be measured for ROI - maintenance.

It depends on what formula Disney uses for ROI. I mean, they did create their own, at least in their fight against Peltz...
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member

Here’s Forbes saying “someone” in the higher ups manipulate the numbers and message to make an nonsensical argument to sell to investors…

…but how could that be?
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member

Here’s Forbes saying “someone” in the higher ups manipulate the numbers and message to make an nonsensical argument to sell to investors…

…but how could that be?
That article is mostly an opinion piece. The two facts I could find are:

1. Disney used a non-standard method of ROI calculation using revenue instead of profit.
2. Disney spelled out how they were doing the calculation so no one should be surprised by this.

Personally, I doubt changing the calculation method would have much impact on how the vote went but it does make you wonder just how lazy everyone really is. Did no one in Peltz whole organization bother to read the material being put out? Did no large scale, institutional investors read it? If not, why do we trust our retirements to these people again?

End of the day, I think most investors had made up their mind long before the propaganda came out because the whole thing ended up as a referendum on Peltz and all these large investors are already familiar with his work.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
That article is mostly an opinion piece. The two facts I could find are:

1. Disney used a non-standard method of ROI calculation using revenue instead of profit.
2. Disney spelled out how they were doing the calculation so no one should be surprised by this.

Personally, I doubt changing the calculation method would have much impact on how the vote went but it does make you wonder just how lazy everyone really is. Did no one in Peltz whole organization bother to read the material being put out? Did no large scale, institutional investors read it? If not, why do we trust our retirements to these people again?

End of the day, I think most investors had made up their mind long before the propaganda came out because the whole thing was a referendum on Peltz and all these large investors are already familiar with his work.
I don’t disagree with you…

But the takeaway is the same: preserving the power of the seats and one executive was the goal and that was where it ended.

Now let’s see if the funds and rating agencies got hoodwinked?

They repeated “succession” over and over again.

It is an accurate opinion piece. Some opinions are accurate. Some saying that only the guy responsible for the problems can save them from the problems are a bit more of a stretch.
 

monothingie

I'm both Crunchy and Delicious!
Premium Member
He got 30%

That’s about what was expected the day of the vote when the dust settled

Nobody withheld their votes for the current board - which was the best move. Now you get what you get. Prepare to be amazed 😎
How has $DIS done since Bob's glorious vanquishment of scourge of Peltz? I mean the poorly animated duck said that it was the best thing to do for my investments.
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
How has $DIS done since Bob's glorious vanquishment of scourge of Peltz? I mean the poorly animated duck said that it was the best thing to do for my investments.
Stellar stock performance since Bob's rout of the evil Peltz! $122.82/share at the close of markets on April 2, and today it's currently $113.53/share. I'm surprised he hasn't been given another 2 year contract extension and bonus stock options.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom