Brian
Well-Known Member
FTFY.Dana isvery chummy withestablishment media.
FTFY.Dana isvery chummy withestablishment media.
And Chapek was portrayed as the sympathetic chump or victim.The whole board should be flushed... that was the saddest part of the read for me, is that somehow Peltz actually read as somewhat sane in that piece because of seeking change in the board.. of course the rest of his platform was BS... but in the list of characters in that story he actually comes out clean. Insane...
The average Joe CEO if they know how to hire or promote execs that are smarter in that particular field more than the CEO to lead those divisions. Where it comes down to is the loyalty they have to the CEO. When the boss says make it happen then the execs make it happen.I think this about most people we place on pedestals, I think most “important” people (politicians, executives, etc) are bumbling and stumbling through life just like the rest of us, they’re just better at hiding their inadequacies and better at shifting blame for their mistakes.
I’ve worked for several multi billion dollar companies and in my experience the people running them are just average Joes (intellectually) who have worked their way to the top through time more than some special knowledge.
With the exception of Jim Pitaro, who I believe a lot of people underestimate. There is no one internally other than Dana who is shrewd enough to proactively inoculate themselves against when (not if) and how Iger comes back if he ultimately decides to leave at all.Bingo.
(Hey anyone happen to know if she likes the Muppets )
Understatement of the day!So the only move Iger has at this point is to not actually leave, which I genuinely think is the most likely outcome, especially since Disney is not exactly at a high point right now.
He's not flawless - but if the story is correct, he was certainly undermined and then hung out to dry by the CFO.And Chapek was portrayed as the sympathetic chump or victim.
With the exception of Jim Pitaro, who I believe a lot of people underestimate. There is no one internally other than Dana who is shrewd enough to proactively inoculate themselves against when (not if) and how Iger comes back if he ultimately decides to leave at all.
This article really closes the door on Iger pulling a repeat move of what happened with Chapek.
So the only move Iger has at this point is to not actually leave, which I genuinely think is the most likely outcome, especially since Disney is not exactly at a high point right now.
Dana and Josh together is what they’re going to end up doing…and I think it’s going to be a disaster.I would have liked a shared CEO role with Josh and Dana.
I don't think she has a clue about Disney and its history
There’s nothing impressive between the two, or any internal candidate.I would have liked a shared CEO role with Josh and Dana.
I don't think she has a clue about Disney and its history
What victim gets fired with a $23M exit package like Chapek?And Chapek was portrayed as the sympathetic chump or victim.
He's not flawless - but if the story is correct, he was certainly undermined and then hung out to dry by the CFO.
Basically the jist of the story is, once Iger soured on him for not continuing to kiss the ring properly, he was more then willing to undercut him and lead to his demise.
You can't give someone the keys to the kingdom and then work against them from inside. And that's exactly what Iger and the board apparently did.
No one is going to bat .1000 with their choices, nor be the perfect avatar from the get go.. but Disney sure has a history of screwing up promotions.
Red alert! Shields up, Mr worfSo the only move Iger has at this point is to not actually leave, which I genuinely think is the most likely outcome, especially since Disney is not exactly at a high point right now.
Iger comes across as petulant and controlling while Chapek needy, incompetent, and downright unintelligent.
Iger comes across as petulant and controlling while Chapek needy, incompetent, and downright unintelligent.
That's how I read it.It is funny to me how many people are reading into the article what they want instead of what is actually there.
Iger comes across as petulant and controlling while Chapek needy, incompetent, and downright unintelligent.
Iger comes across as an egomaniac who doesn’t want to be left out of Hollywood shindigs and used a public company as his own plaything while the incompetent board sat back and did nothing. How there wasn’t a mass exodus from the boardroom after all this is an even bigger mystery.It is funny to me how many people are reading into the article what they want instead of what is actually there.
Iger comes across as petulant and controlling while Chapek needy, incompetent, and downright unintelligent.
I don't know how much is really "factual" and how much is just people speaking to the authors and retelling their version of events from their perspective. Memory is a funny thing, as its inaccurate and can be manipulated with each retelling of a story. I'd take the whole article with a huge truck load of salt, as its basically just the same information from that CNBC article from last year (as a poster pointed out in another thread).I think the tone of the article should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The factual details were interesting, but they are constantly describing people “fuming”, “stewing”, etc. upon hearing various remarks or in reaction to certain things. Like really, how would they know what all parties were doing internally?
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.