The War Is Over.. Congrats Roy Disney

[ThreeCircles]

That's a mighty big conclussion you've jumped to based on his resignations. Especially given his reasons for resigning.

Anyway, Roy was never trying to head up the Walt Disney Company. So I guess I still don't see your point. Unless you're just trying to throw mud at him.

Dude, lighten up, it's only a discussion forum. Did you not see the " :lol: "? It's called, ummmm, a joke? Yeah! That's the ticket! :animwink:

I'll post that when I get home tonight and have access to the holy bible of Disney history that is Disneywar

Try for an unbiased source!

Actually he was forced out by the mandatory retirement clause in the boards bylaws. He wanted an exception because he was a "disney" and when he did not get it he resigned (on his own). If you want sources for that pull up any article from the time it is well documented.

Um, you are contradiciting yourself within your own post.

How can someone be "forced out" and resign on their own at the same time? Oh, wait, they can't! Yes ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! Roy Disney did, in fact, resign on his own for the THIRD time in 2003! :sohappy:

 

[ThreeCircles]

If Roy and Stan can make the peace with the Disney board, surely we can agree to disagree on this thread.

I agree to disagree! :wave:

As if we ever had a choice in the matter, right?

 

[Captain Chaos]

From Wikipedia:



BTW, Roy has resigned from the company more times than you can shake a stick at. :sohappy:

I was just on the Wikipedia site and could not locate where you found this. What did you search under to locate this? I would like to read the entire article...

 

[ThreeCircles]

I was just on the Wikipedia site and could not locate where you found this. What did you search under to locate this? I would like to read the entire article...

Roy E. Disney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Edward_Disney

 

[Captain Chaos]

Dude, lighten up, it's only a discussion forum. Did you not see the " :lol: "? It's called, ummmm, a joke? Yeah! That's the ticket! :animwink:




Try for an unbiased source!



Um, you are contradiciting yourself within your own post.

How can someone be "forced out" and resign on their own at the same time? Oh, wait, they can't! Yes ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! Roy Disney did, in fact, resign on his own for the THIRD time in 2003! :sohappy:

I just read on that same Wikipedia site that Roy asked for an extention of his board term and was refused.. He resigned instead of finishing his current term.. Effectively he was being forced out... The board had made exceptions before, don't you think they could have made an exception for Roy? I think so... He wasn't forced to resign, he did that on his own... but, he was being forced out...

 

[ThreeCircles]

I just read on that same Wikipedia site that Roy asked for an extention of his board term and was refused.. He resigned instead of finishing his current term.. Effectively he was being forced out... The board had made exceptions before, don't you think they could have made an exception for Roy? I think so... He wasn't forced to resign, he did that on his own... but, he was being forced out...

No, he resigned. You can't be "forced out" and resign at the same time. Which happened first? Yes, that's correct, he quit. He resigned.

Who knows what may have happened if he had not resigned? Maybe the board would have reconsidered and approved the extension.

For the side that was always asking for the proof, where's the proof that he was "forced out?" Oh, wait, you can't prove something that never happened.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Quoted from Wikipedia:

After a struggle with CEO Michael Eisner, Roy Disney's influence began to wane as more executives friendly to Eisner were appointed to high posts. When the board of directors rejected Disney's request for an extension of his term as board member, he announced his resignation on November 30, 2003, citing "serious differences of opinion about the direction and style of management" in the company.

This quote shows Eisner was filling positions with his friends and puppets. Roy had applied for the extension.. As the quote states, he was denied therefore the force out occured first..... if they were going to grant him the exception, they would have done so the first time he applied for it, not a second or third... Their mind was made up, Eisner had to have Roy out... The board said NO ROY MUST GO. And gone he went.. Yes, he resigned, but, he resigned due to the fact that he was being forced out...

And no where in that article does it state the president of WDFA made the decisions....

 

[ThreeCircles]

Quoted from Wikipedia:

After a struggle with CEO Michael Eisner, Roy Disney's influence began to wane as more executives friendly to Eisner were appointed to high posts. When the board of directors rejected Disney's request for an extension of his term as board member, he announced his resignation on November 30, 2003, citing "serious differences of opinion about the direction and style of management" in the company.

Yeah, I agree. He resigned. Unless one can prove that he was forced out and didn't resign, he resigned. Easy!

And no where in that article does it state the president of WDFA made the decisions....

Did I say it did? :lookaroun

Try this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Feature_Animation

 

[ThreeCircles]

This quote is also interesting:

A string of successful films followed suit, and Disney expanded WDFA to a total staff of over 2400 by 1999, including employees located at satellite studios in Orlando and Paris. However, the expansion coincided with a decline in both revenue and quality of the department's output.

Geez... What was Roy doing??? No wonder the board didn't want to extend his position and he resigned!

 

[Captain Chaos]

Ok.. that's the article I was looking for:

Most decisions, however, were made by the WDFA President, who officially reported to Mr. Disney but who in practice also reported to the head of the Disney studios and Disney chief Michael Eisner.


Thanks for the link...

 

[Captain Chaos]

This quote is also interesting:



Geez... What was Roy doing??? No wonder the board didn't want to extend his position and he resigned!

Roy Disney expanded the WDFA department on his own? I am sure he had to get approval by Eisner... a decision that obviously BOTH men made that failed... But granted.. Roy obviously wanted this expansion, and obviously it was not a good decision, but one I am sure he couldn't have made without approval...

 

[lebeau]

This quote is also interesting:



Geez... What was Roy doing??? No wonder the board didn't want to extend his position and he resigned!

You are taking things very much out of context to suit your own agenda. The majority of Roy's hands-on work was spent on Fantasia 2000, which was admittedly less than a blockbuster. Arguably it was a creative and commercial misfire although it did recoup its investment.

The expansion of the animation department was related to the post-Lion King animation boom of the 90s. Lion King showed the industry how much money could be made off of animation and the related merchandise and suddenly everyone wanted a piece of that lucrative pie.

Making matters worse, Katzenberg had gone off and formed Dreamworks with his mogul buddies Spielberg and Geffen. And one of their first orders of business was to headhunt Disney animators. Suddenly, a bidding war broke out for animators and anyone who wanted to make animated films was forced to outdo the highest bid.

As often happens in this sort of thing, the bubble kept on growing until it eventually burst and animation as a whole collapsed. Traditional animators everywhere found that they were suddenly obsolete. Hand drawn animation was shipped overseas where inferior work could be mass produced cheaply.

No one person was responsible for the animation implosion. Blaming it on Roy is silly. It just comes across like you're trying to throw every accusation you can think of at him and see what sticks.

 

[tazhughes]

Um, you are contradiciting yourself within your own post.

How can someone be "forced out" and resign on their own at the same time? Oh, wait, they can't! Yes ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! Roy Disney did, in fact, resign on his own for the THIRD time in 2003! :sohappy:[/QUOTE]


First off I was agreeing with you if you had read the post, but since you are acting like a 3 year old just randomnly attacking everyone, I'll explain it slowly for you.

He was attempting to get an exception from the board bylaw that required mandatory retirement so that he could be extended on past his current term. When they refused, he made the rash decision to resign his post immediately.
Hopefully that was slow enough and clear enough for you to understand how someone could get forced out by mandatory retirement and still resign.

 

[Rayray]

No, he resigned. You can't be "forced out" and resign at the same time. Which happened first? Yes, that's correct, he quit. He resigned.

I'm not saying that Roy was forced out, but do not say that you cannot be forced out and resign at the same time. It is called being forced to resign - a policy that many companies practice when a member that needs to be removed is in a high, respectable position. If the company wishes for the employee to leave on somewhat good terms, they will ask for his resignation. So, you see, one can be forced out and resign at the same time. Just thought I'd clear that up.:wave:

 

[Captain Chaos]

Just like Eisner's critics did to him. he was blamed for every one of the Disney company's failures.. And well, he should be.. He is/was the man in charge after all..

Look, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it is a duck.. Eisner was good for TWDC in the beginning, whether it was due to the partnership with Frank Wells or not... Eisner had his run and is no longer good for TWDC..

No matter how much you bash Roy or we bash Eisner.. Eisner is gone.. he is done... His time has come and gone... Let's move on and support Iger until he deems himself unworthy of our support...

 

[askmike1]

"Paint is cheap in the big picture of things and it was never an issue at any Disney park until ME took over."
Was it, or did you never look for it? Before SD started, not many people complained about these things (yet things were no different).

"What???? What are your sources, my friend? You seem very uninformed. Eisner received record high bonuses for any CEO. It is debatable whether or not those bonses were deserved. He was certainly very successful at Disney for a long time. But he was most certainly NOT on the lower end of the CEO payscale. If you're going to make those kinds of claims, you're going to have to back them up with data becuase Eisner's record high compensation is well-documented and was the source of public outcry in light of Disney's poor performance in recent years."
I got that directly from FORBES lists of top compensated CEOs (2005). Go here to see more.

"You're comparing apples and oranges; Eisner's an employee vs. Roy who's an owner."
Roy is paid. He was on the board of directors and got paid. Do you think Roy (or Stan) worked for free? I think not. Both people are CM's of the WDC. People keep complaining that Eisner should put some of his money in the company, so I was just saying the same thing about Roy. Also, one more thing...Michael Eisner is a shareholder too! So I guess I'm comparing Apples....and Apples.

"I can tell you I have seen the show about a dozen times and never have I had nor seen a torn, ripped, or cut seat in the theater, and I make a point of looking every time."
Exactly. If you are looking for negative things...you will find them. You would have found them 50 years ago too. (Okay, I know the parks weren't around 50 years ago, but you know what I mean) Two weeks ago I saw a paper cup on top of a garbage (not inside it). Now, I could have complained to everyone about how people are so stupid or how 30 years ago it wouldn't have been there...but I did not. Instead I picked it up and put it in the garbage. Maybe someone put it there seconds before I saw it. Maybe someone put it down to tie their shoe and forgot to pick it up.


"The fact is that just because it is Disney does not mean the CM's have to make magically gigantic salaries."
Exactly. Do CMs expect to be paid $20 an hour? That is insane. Disney World is the largest single site employer in the USA (possibly the world). They don't have the money to greatly increase CMs pay.

Michael Eisner's Compensation (Forbes)
1997-#62-$8m-Top Paid CEO made $104m
1998-#37-$16m-Top Paid CEO made $227m
1999-#1-$589m-Top Paid CEO made $589m
2000-#16-$50m-Top Paid CEO made $650m
2001-#14-$72m-Top Paid CEO made $235m
2002-#458-$1m-Top Paid CEO made $706m
2003-#457-$1m-Top Paid CEO made $116m
2004-#134-$7m-Top Paid CEO made $147m
2005-#163-#8m-Top Paid CEO made $230m

Note that 1999 was a record year for many CEOs. 4 others made over $100m. In 2002, 8 people made over $100m. So even with the huge bonus in 1999 (which I believe was deserved), he only averaged $83m over the past 9 years, well below other CEOs. Take out 1999 and he only averaged $20m over the 8 years. Total the amount he made in the past 9 years and you get $752m. (Barely more than what Lawrence Ellison made in 2002) Total the amount the top CEOs made in the past 9 years and you get $3004m. What I just showed you were facts...unbiased facts.

Go here to see how well the animation department did under Roy's watch.


"Who was head of that division when Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Aladdin were hits? Who was head when Home on the Range was a flop? I honestly don't know and cannot locate that information anywhere... But I think the Disney animation department has taken a huge step back and have seen more flops recently than hits.. But, I don't like to judge their movies based on theater ticket sales.. I base them on story and brother bear, although not a theater blockbuster was still cute and enjoyable... Home on the Range wasn't..."
Disney's golden age (Little mermaid to TLK) were all seen under Katzenberg. Even the films that came after that (Pocahontas-Mulan) was mostly Katzenberg. Roy came in with Tarzan (I believe). And although I love Brother Bear, HotR, and Atlantis...a film's sucess is based on the money it makes. According to Wikipedia, Katzenberg also signed the deal with Pixar. Katz was the head of the Studios. He was the reason for Disney's movie success in the early 90s.

"We should just stop pointing fingers of blame and look foward to a wonderful, magic filled future."
There's 15 pages on this...we can't stop now.

"That's a mighty big conclussion you've jumped to based on his resignations. Especially given his reasons for resigning."
Or the fact that he would rather go yachting then be a part of the company...

As for his resignation...yes...he would have been forced out. (Key words: "Would have") However, the very age limit that would have forced him out...he voted on. How can you vote yes for something and then complain about it?

"One caveat: There were several members on the board for whom that exception had been granted. In fact, though the rule had been on the books it had not been enforced historically."
I have to disagree with this. For one thing, I have never heard about this rule being broken. In fact, Chairman George Mitchell will have to retire after this year because of the age limit. I believe the rule says that Disney Board Members can stay on until a certain age (lets say 78). The only exception is that if a CEO chooses to stay on the board, I believe he can stay on for an extra amount of time (lets say 5 years). A.so, I know my words here can easily be twisted, but you know what I mean.

"The board had made exceptions before..."
Do you have proof of this? The age limit is relatively new.

"No one person was responsible for the animation implosion. Blaming it on Roy is silly."
Yet people do the same things to Eisner...

"And well, he should be.. He is/was the man in charge after all.. "
So Eisner should be blamed for little things because he is in charge, but Roy shouldn't be blamed for things he's in charge of?
-Michael

 

[ThreeCircles]

You are taking things very much out of context to suit your own agenda.

No, I quoted a source. It's actually an un-biased source too.

Tazhughes, I'm sorry you think I'm attacking anyone. I fail to see where I attacked someone (other than Roy, that is). But, I still disagree. Roy resigned three times on his own. I'm not sure how this can be up for discussion when it is well documented.

 

[peter11435]

Just like Eisner's critics did to him. he was blamed for every one of the Disney company's failures.. And well, he should be.. He is/was the man in charge after all..

Look, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it is a duck.. Eisner was good for TWDC in the beginning, whether it was due to the partnership with Frank Wells or not... Eisner had his run and is no longer good for TWDC..

So wait a second Eisner should be blamed for every one of the Disney company's failures because he was the man in charge. Yet he is not given credit for Disney's success because even though Eisner was in charge they were all the work of Well. Seems like your logic only works in one direction.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Askmike1. thanks for that info about the WDFA... I wasn't too sure so I asked before commenting on who was in charge...

And Yes.. Eisner should be blamed for the things that go bad, especially because of his decisions.. As well as Roy and who ever else is in charge... People need to be held accountable.. Eisner was surrounding himself with people who would not dare hold him responsible.. Roy called him out.. he exposed the board for what it was, Eisner cronies.... The board, knowing their credibility was coming under fire, did the proper thing in removing the CEO from being the chairperson... Roy may have taken it too far in attacking the choice of Iger, and he realized it, thus prompting this resolution...

Roy is not an angel in this situation, but defending Eisner and saying how great he was for Disney and over looking his misdeeds is like saying a certain German dictator was great for Germany, but, he made a few mistakes...

 

[Captain Chaos]

Peter dude... yes Eisner should be held accountable, as any CEO should.. Eisner also received credit when credit was due when he did the good things for the company. So, no my argument is not one sided...