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

[Brian]

You know the dynamic of the boardroom? How?

Judging by the decisions they have made which are of shareholder record, and what analysts say, it would seem the board is comprised of Iger loyalists, and in some cases, Iger yesmen.

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?

No offense, but that seems like a long shot. Peltz isn't some modern day Jim Jones.

 

[James Alucobond]

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).

Gambling with possibly the worst odds ever. Cool. Cool cool cool.

 

[BrianLo]

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

Thanks! And it’s not really something that can be debated, it’s just helpful for me to frame your perspective. It’s a fools game to argue opinion. So I think to summarize pro Perlmutter, hoping for Rasulo to have changed. But if he hasn’t changed you’d still take him as part of the package deal. Pro Peltz who is not so secretly acting way more anti Iger than they presented at first and would represent the Perlmutter items in the boardroom.

 

[mikejs78]

I maintain that it is possible his views on the parks may have shifted in the last 20 years since he was appointed chairman

It's *possible* that Jeff Skilling has changed his views and has become more honest. So let's make him a CEO again. After all, anything is possible.

 

[mikejs78]

Judging by the decisions they have made which are of shareholder record, and what analysts say, it would seem the board is comprised of Iger loyalists, and in some cases, Iger yesmen.


No offense, but that seems like a long shot. Peltz isn't some modern day Jim Jones.

No more of a long shot than to think that Rasulo has somehow changed his views.

 

[Brian]

It's *possible* that Jeff Skilling has changed his views and has become more honest. So let's make him a CEO again. After all, anything is possible.

Rasulo didn't commit any crimes, unless you count those banners @HMF shared earlier.

 

[JoeCamel]

He may be…

The problem is the current board is gangrenous and has already lost a couple of toes

True but if I've got gangrene I don't introduce plague to cure it I cut off the toes/foot/fingers.
Yes Bob is long past his sell by date but this is an extreme option to fix the root of the problem.
The action may be enough to do the job but to cement it in stone is just spite.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

I’m a student of history…what does history tell us?

A trained psychologist would also tell us who the LAST to know it’s time will be?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

True but if I've got gangrene I don't introduce plague to cure it I cut off the toes/foot/fingers.
Yes Bob is long past his sell by date but this is an extreme option to fix the root of the problem.
The action may be enough to do the job but to cement it in stone is just spite.

I’d be happy if it scares enough of these board stiffs to deviate from the emperor and just make sure someone new is named.

That’s enough.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I can't speak for the member you're quoting, but it's far more than a big blue warehouse and Genie+ for many.

I'm one of the most negative posters on these boards about Disney World's direction over the last decade and a half. I'm the guy who thinks Guardians and Resistance are massively overrated. I still think welcoming the company's destruction is really selfish.

Unless, of course, you see the Disney proxy battle as a fight in a much larger war. Then wanting Disney destroyed makes some sense. And I hope you lose decisively.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No more of a long shot than to think that Rasulo has somehow changed his views.

I was unaware of when P&R head had “independent thought/action” added to its list of job perks

 

[BrianLo]

Tell me absolutely what their aim is.

There is roughly alignment on Streaming. Leaner ‘quality content’, higher prices. Probably some influence on what content goes into streaming. Lots of claiming success for wheels already in motion. They might push for cheaper content that Iger, but I can’t say that with authority. Iger has always driven a lean + expensive slate in his studio strategy. They may go lean + cheap.

There may be some demands to set individual studio and production ROI quotas. Fire creatives if their content misses more quickly - or request more advisory notes from executives be shared downstream.

The Studios they probably only care insofar as Marvel. You can’t impact them all - so they’d likely put the majority of their energy in targeting the one. Kevin Feige out and Perlmutter or an extension would be in.

Parks I think would be still invested in, likely not as grandiosely. When people talk about the yes man saying yes - I think the yes man are saying yes to Iger wanting to spend big on parks. Prepare for Peltz and Rasulo to throw a few more no’s in. I think the ROI on DCL and DVC is fine, they wouldn’t worry about another fleet expansion. I think park projects would be curated. Think Avengers campus, but some of the costume characters being paywalled. Less rock work. Tighter project budget. Wakanda for Disneyland might be fought against and then I don’t know if they really care about the rest of their preferred IP.

Succession would be railed against endlessly. A fit would be thrown on any Iger contract extensions. Rasulo seems to be the preferred choice from their camp for next CEO.

Then I think a core asset would be targeted for sale. Don’t ask me which one, I don’t think they even would know that yet. But one that could be turned into a quick cash infusion at what some would surely argue is the long term detriment. It could be sports though, which some may agree with.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm one of the most negative posters on these boards about Disney World's direction over the last decade and a half. I'm the guy who thinks Guardians and Resistance are massively overrated. I still think welcoming the company's destruction is really selfish.

Unless, of course, you see the Disney proxy battle as a fight in a much larger war. Then wanting Disney destroyed makes some sense. And I hope you lose decisively.

I’m still looking for anyone who has wished for Disney destruction?

Except trauma…but we know he is ANGRY

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Anyone thinking cheaper content at higher price is the way to go for streaming has been sniffing swamp gas in secret

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

Peltz and/or Rasulo on the board does not actually mean they will be in charge. Aren't we skipping a few steps here?

 

[Casper Gutman]

I’m still looking for anyone who has wished for Disney destruction?

Except trauma…but we know he is ANGRY

Read the thread.

 

[Brian]

I'm one of the most negative posters on these boards about Disney World's direction over the last decade and a half.

Interesting you should say the last 15 years. Rasulo switched to the CFO role right around when things began to go downhill in your opinion.

I'm the guy who thinks Guardians and Resistance are massively overrated. I still think welcoming the company's destruction is really selfish.

Unless, of course, you see the Disney proxy battle as a fight in a much larger war. Then wanting Disney destroyed makes some sense. And I hope you lose decisively.

I do not welcome the company's destruction. I would rather see it return to the cherished position it held in the hearts of the American public for nearly 100 years, and I don't just mean the politics were not allowed to discuss here. Whether or not Peltz and Rasulo could contribute positively to that goal remains to be seen, but Iger and his cronies on the board and in the C suite certainly aren't going to get the job done considering they got the company into that position in the first place.

My ideal outcome is that Iger comes out of this so badly damaged he has no choice but to resign, however, I fear who the current board would appoint in his place.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Interesting you should say the last 15 years. Rasulo switched to the CFO role right around when things began to go downhill in your opinion.

I choose a general number based on when I dramatically reduced my time in the parks. Honestly, things have been going downhill since the Epcot changes in the mid-90s. The opening of AK in '98 was the last real bright spot.

I do not welcome the company's destruction. I would rather see it return to the cherished position it held in the hearts of the American public for nearly 100 years, and I don't just mean the politics were not allowed to discuss here. Whether or not Peltz and Rasulo could contribute positively to that goal remains to be seen, but Iger and his cronies on the board and in the C suite certainly aren't going to get the job done considering they got the company into that position in the first place.

You seem to support Peltz's "content idea" as a return to the "hearts of the American public." His views on content, which echo Perlmutter's, are abhorrent and your framing betrays a twisted view of what makes up the "American public."

 

[BrianLo]

Anyone thinking cheaper content at higher price is the way to go for streaming has been sniffing swamp gas in secret

100 percent. That's not my perspective either, but that seems to be how wall street wants to handle things. It's the downward trend letdown of peak TV.

 

[Brian]

You seem to support Peltz's "content idea" as a return to the "hearts of the American public." His views on content, which echo Perlmutter's, are abhorrent and your framing betrays a twisted view of what makes up the "American public."

You're making false assumptions. We've been asked politely to keep politics out of this, but there is far more than a political course correction necessary to return the company to the "hearts of the American public" at large.

They also must restore creativity as a core competency of the company, in other words, stop putting out crap content, and also make the 'Disney Experiences' segment more accessible to those with less means. Buying a theme park ticket should be enough to have an excellent day at the park, much like it was in the time period you now invoke as the ideal time in P&R history, and before it started going downhill.