So much to comment on. How can anyone state HULU is worth more than the original floor, it is not making money and new Subs are not breaking any records. Disney did over pay for Fox, but the 71 Billion is not correct as Disney sold off parts that decreased the actual sale to something like 47 Billion-still way too much. Someone tell me why or why you would spend all that money to get Fox content and put so very little on Disney + - the reported purpose of buying was for the content that was going to be used to get Subs to D+ (did Disney Execs not read their own public relations). The CNBC piece was a great read, but all of it had been trickled out before-what the piece did was take all the rumors, articles, and gossip and put it in one chronological article.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
That floor number was picked 5 years ago. You don't believe it has risen at all since then?
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
What fox has is kinda garbage…If you’re Disney
If Comcast or CBS had bought it and added to their stream? Without the pretenses…would have made a lot more sense.
At a lower price…of course
Correct, if anything I would argue that with what is going on in the streaming wars, it is worth Less.
pdude81
Well-Known Member
Fox content makes more sense in a world where they can put some on Hulu and still license films out to other providers (HBO, Prime, Netflix, etc).
Roberts definitely screwed Iger on the Fox price overall but then he overpaid Disney for Sky in a one-sided auction.
pdude81
Well-Known Member
Lots more subscribers, and quarterly revenue has more than doubled. Also does anybody remember what a loaf of bread cost 5 years ago?
Not taking sides, just curious, what are your arguments for Hulu value as less than the agreed upon value 5 years ago?
flynnibus
Premium Member
Except that's not the story the article tells.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
The article tries to be “fair” to both…but in the wash ends up trashing them both…
“Blinders off”
gorillaball
Well-Known Member
Nominates is not the same as appoints.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
The rubber stamp is the tie breaker
I have officially decided neither Bob is any good. At the time of the Pixar, Star Wars and Marvel purchases, I thought Iger had brought together the pieces they needed. Now both Bob’s have done so much value destruction last 6 ish years that they have created a giant hole. It was all so unnecessary- every decision they made in those years was wrong and purposeful. Now even with the benefit of hindsight and the ability to blame Chapek, Iger has doubled down on most of the failed policies. The incompetent handling of Snow White is but one example. How can they not learn anything?
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Bingo. Said perfectly
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
I read it. It was bad for both Bobs. The reality is Bob #1 never really gave the keys to the kingdom to Bob #2 and left
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
It was 1001% deliberate. Iger. There’s not nearly as much “cunning” as his press lapdogs give him credit for.
He hid from the plague because he thought it might take a bite out of his ego. Plain and simple
It looks terrible…it almost looks like it’s written on the Onion or is a Mel brooks screenplay
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
You got it.
flynnibus
Premium Member
which is nothing like "the chosen puppet to take a fall during the hit knowing what was coming"
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
Knowing what we know do you honestly think it was just coincidence?
hopemax
Well-Known Member
This article is so weird, imo. Normally, I have no issue settling in for some
... but I've had to take 4 breaks from the article and I'm still not done reading it, and I skipped some paragraphs. It's like, "When did CNBC get *so* trashy?" This isn't just a peek at the insider baseball, this is the whole Disney company enchilada is petty, rudderless, and going down. Not unknown to us, obviously, but so publicly? So what is the point? Someone big is after the Walt Disney Company, and it's not Iger's so-called preferred solution of Apple. If it's Apple, I think it would be quiet, fast and just done. This is loud and destructive, so I suspect someone else. I'd start looking at Comcast, because they have the same profile of companies (studio, streaming, theme parks) and they are the owner of CNBC who permitted this monster of an article. But can they pull it off? Do they have a partner who would be willing to split Disney's holdings? 2nd option possibly, someone foreign. America is not dying, but there is much to be gained from people believing it is, while the rest of the world is a heck of a lot closer to the edge and global money needs to be parked somewhere.The bigger problem here is that like the 70s and 80s when the Studios merged and the media landscape changed with cable, we're in that same situation. No one knows what is going to be the winning strategy, and everything looks like it's failing. I've been wondering if we've just reached an inevitable point in human history where watching stories on a screen just isn't as intoxicating to humans as it used to be. It can still be enjoyable, but it's not as vital or necessary. I've certainly had my fill of bad entertainment, and thanks to the writer's strike I understand a little more of how we ended up here. The more the media biggies, and sports giants try to force everyone else into what works best for them, the more I want no part of it. But Disney's catalog is still a golden egg, and there are far worse strategies one of the other biggies could attempt then to try and capture it. The point is that there is phoenix-level regeneration going on, on multiple fronts (this Spectrum thing I fear is more telling than we'd wish) and Disney is looking more and more like they are going to be the epicenter.