The War Is Over.. Congrats Roy Disney

[Rayray]

This is the thread that never ends...
it just go's on and on my friends...
some people started writing? it...
not knowing what it was...

I already tried doing a "Yo Ho" parody to lighten up the tension - it didn't work. "See you at Disneyland...BRING MONEY!":lol:


But, on a serious note, I think that everyone should agree to disagree in this thread. Both sides are making good points (some not), and the final say-so on the topic is total opinion. I would agree more with the Roy side on this one, but I wouldn't defend either side to the death.

BTW, the statements about not blaming the paint on Eisner - although he directly may not be responsible, his desicion not to grant money for the task would be his fault (so what's the big deal?)." That is only important, however, if Eisner was involved with that aspect of business (technically he is not exept that he's responsible for the company as a whole).:snore:

 

[askmike1]

I already tried doing a "Yo Ho" parody to lighten up the tension - it didn't work.

The way I see it is that this could very well be the last SD thread. With SD gone and Eisner leaving, this could be the last major debate/argument about Roy and Eisner. A historic moment to say the least.

-Michael

 

[lebeau]

Well, to that I ask why should Roy be exempt from the rules? Does the last name give him some added talent? Even he did not like the shareholder proposal that forced a Disney on the board. (All though, as Jim Hill said, it could have just been a mischivious plan to keep Diane out of the company) If the name "Disney" is so important than why did he kick out Walt's daughter and son-in-law out of the company? If he's a true Disney, then why will he not be at Disneyland's 50th? Walt's daughter will be.

-Michael

Actually, Roy was technically exempt because of his role as head of animation. The mandatory retirement age did not apply to employees who were in management.

As to the 50th, I don't know what you people are so hung up about. Roy is a retiree now. He can do whatever he wants. Plenty of retirees would rather sail yachts than attend the publicity functions of their old employers. I think Roy's involvement in the company over the past several decades shows he is dedicated to the company. Even his arch rival, Eisner, credits him with nothing less than saving the company at least once! So what if he has a prior obligation and can't attend one function?

I agree with your point about reading multiple sources. As I said in a prior post, I find the subject of the Disney Company fascinating and I read anything I can find on the subject. I've quoted Disneywar because

1) It's relatively comprehensive. In one volume, it covers all of the highs and lows of the Eisner administration.

2) It's relatively objective. Yes, the author does occassionally stick it to Eisner more heavily than he might have. (He really seems to like pointing out when Eisner lies or contradicts himself in the footnotes.) But the factual content is uncontested and all sides are presented. No work can be entirely objective, by the way. Just in the choice of what material to present, the author introduces some element of bias.

(Incidentally, the Eisner quotes came from a public speech - so it would be very hard for Stewart to get away with misquoting him there. If you feel the quote is missing context - please read the whole book and any other info you can find on the subject.)

3) It's very convenient. Other articles I've read are scattered out in different magazines or websites and I can't remember which article contained which bits of info. Disneywar is on my nightstand and it has all the info I need to make my points.

And in case it's been lost in all these pages, my point is not that Eisner was a villain and Roy saved the world. Its' that the situation is much more complex than Roy-bashers like 3Circles would have you believe. And whether he wants to admit it or not, Roy has made some great contributions to the Disney Company over the years.

I encourage people to read Disneywar because it is a great resource. IT pulls together interviews with insiders like Eisner and Roy themselves along with court documents and Eisner's own letters and journal entries. I would never discourage people who are interested in the subject from reading other sources. I'm always looking for more reading material on the subject myself.

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

Why are we so hung up about him not being there. It isn't his former employer's park. It his is Uncle's park which HIS OWN FATHER had a part in creating...Would you sail a little boat or would you attend the 50th Anniversary of something your father helped build?

FYI..I have not heard back from Roy or Disneyland.

 

[that_L_do_pig]

Why are we so hung up about him not being there. It isn't his former employer's park. It his is Uncle's park

half uncle if you believe this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/155972174X/qid=1121345056/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-8781706-4510220?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[lebeau]

Why are we so hung up about him not being there. It isn't his former employer's park. It his is Uncle's park which HIS OWN FATHER had a part in creating...Would you sail a little boat or would you attend the 50th Anniversary of something your father helped build?

FYI..I have not heard back from Roy or Disneyland.

Yeah, I might skip it. It would depend on the circumstances. If there was something else that was my personal passion and someone there I didn't want to see - I just might do the thing that I find really appealing. But that's just me.

Dude's a retiree. He's at least 73 (not sure when his birthday is). He's earned the right to do whatever he wants with his golden years.

 

[tazhughes]

Disneywar on Roy's forced retirement:

"Yes, technically he was (over the mandatory retirement age) since the retirement age was seventy-two and he had just turned seventy-three. But it didn't apply to board members who were also part of management, and he was the head of animation. Disney was famous for the longevity of many of its employees."

"After Bryson spoke to his fellow members of the nomination and governance committee - Lozano, Estrin and Wilson - he reported that the committee remained firm in its determination to force Roy off the board."

About the non-enforcement of the retirment policy:

"Of course, we've ignored that rule," Eisner mused in one encounter with Disney executives where he floated the prospect (of forcing Roy out). Indeed, Disney was legendary for not enforcing any mandatory retirment policy. The legendary 'old men' of animation had stayed as long as they liked. John Hench, and Imagineer who helped Walt design Disneyland, was still working until his death at ninety-five. Lucille Martin, Eisner's secretary who had worked for Walt, was careful never to reveal her age but must have been in her eighties. Tom Murphy and Ray Watson (board members at the time) were both seventy-two."

Interesting quotes from Eisner on Roy:

"I can't really blame Roy for Fantasia."

"You know Roy, he doesn't care about money. Roy cares about art."

I know you don't let facts get in the way of your arguments, but as you will see from the quote below which is taken directly from an article on MSNBC the day after his resignation. This rule was a year old, obviously you can not say that this rule had not been enforce or had been ignored for years. The mandatory retirement that Disneywar is distorting is the general policy of the company not the Board's by laws. At no point did Eisner or the Board suggest that Roy had to resign from animation, in fact they had allowed him to stay on past the retirement age.

From the MSNBC article:

The board’s presiding director, former Sen. George Mitchell, said in a statement Sunday he regretted Disney’s actions and confirmed that the governance and nominating committee recently informed Disney that the age-limit rule, instituted last year, should apply.

“It is unfortunate that the committee’s judgment to apply these unanimously adopted governance rules has become an occasion to raise again criticisms of the direction of the company, and calls for change of management, that have been previously rejected by the board.”

 

[askmike1]

Dude's a retiree. He's at least 73 (not sure when his birthday is). He's earned the right to do whatever he wants with his golden years.

What part of "he's not a retiree anymore" do you not understand. He is currently employed by the Walt Disney Co. as Director Emeritus. He is no longer in retirement. Like everyone else in the company, he is once again a cast member. Also, his age should be a factor. He's probably not going to be around for Disneyland's 75th (or WDW's 50th), so this could be one of the last milestone event he could attend. Boat Races happen all the time, Disneyland only has it's (real) 50th once.

-Michael

 

[peter11435]

What part of "he's not a retiree anymore" do you not understand. He is currently employed by the Walt Disney Co. as Director Emeritus. He is no longer in retirement. Like everyone else in the company, he is once again a cast member. Also, his age should be a factor. He's probably not going to be around for Disneyland's 75th (or WDW's 50th), so this could be one of the last milestone event he could attend. Boat Races happen all the time, Disneyland only has it's (real) 50th once.

-Michael

Actually as I understand it Director Emeritus is not really a paid position with the company, but rather just a title like saying former president Clinton. Roy still has no real authority in the company (thank god) and the title is really just for show.

 

[lebeau]

Actually as I understand it Director Emeritus is not really a paid position with the company, but rather just a title like saying former president Clinton. Roy still has no real authority in the company (thank god) and the title is really just for show.

That is exactly correct.

He is, in fact, a retiree. He was, in fact, pushed into retirement earlier than he desired.

 

[lebeau]

delete

 

[lebeau]

I know you don't let facts get in the way of your arguments, but as you will see from the quote below which is taken directly from an article on MSNBC the day after his resignation. This rule was a year old, obviously you can not say that this rule had not been enforce or had been ignored for years. The mandatory retirement that Disneywar is distorting is the general policy of the company not the Board's by laws. At no point did Eisner or the Board suggest that Roy had to resign from animation, in fact they had allowed him to stay on past the retirement age.

From the MSNBC article:

The board’s presiding director, former Sen. George Mitchell, said in a statement Sunday he regretted Disney’s actions and confirmed that the governance and nominating committee recently informed Disney that the age-limit rule, instituted last year, should apply.

“It is unfortunate that the committee’s judgment to apply these unanimously adopted governance rules has become an occasion to raise again criticisms of the direction of the company, and calls for change of management, that have been previously rejected by the board.”

The board's response to Roy's resignation is included in Disneywar. Guess it's not such a biased source afterall.

You know, if you're going to suggest I am dodging the facts, you really ought to back it up. When have I ever denied something that was fact? I haven't done anything on this thread that would merit an attack on my integrity.

All I have suggested to people is that they look at all the information available instead of a vocal minority of people who seem to have a personal grudge against Roy Disney.

 

[ThreeCircles]

The board's response to Roy's resignation is included in Disneywar. Guess it's not such a biased source afterall.

You know, if you're going to suggest I am dodging the facts, you really ought to back it up. When have I ever denied something that was fact? I haven't done anything on this thread that would merit an attack on my integrity.

All I have suggested to people is that they look at all the information available instead of a vocal minority of people who seem to have a personal grudge against Roy Disney.

Well, for one, you continually indicate that Roy was "forced out" when in fact he resigned his post. That is a fact. And you dodge it.

So, if you do it in this case, it stands to reason you have/are/will do it in others.

 

[ThreeCircles]

I also wanted to point this out:

Almost everyone would agree that the Iger Years, at least in this very early stage, look positive.

Who was for Iger taking Eisners place: Eisner.

Who filed lawsuits in hopes of over-turning Iger's new appointment as CEO: Roy's SellDisney.com Campaign.

Interesting...

 

[lebeau]

Well, for one, you continually indicate that Roy was "forced out" when in fact he resigned his post. That is a fact. And you dodge it.

So, if you do it in this case, it stands to reason you have/are/will do it in others.

You must have me confused with someone else. I have always acknowledged he resigned. He did so when the board told him they were going to have him removed. Even with his resignation, most people I know would consider that being "forced to retire".

At no point did I deny or dodge that fact. Care to try again?

 

[lebeau]

I also wanted to point this out:

Almost everyone would agree that the Iger Years, at least in this very early stage, look positive.

Who was for Iger taking Eisners place: Eisner.

Who filed lawsuits in hopes of over-turning Iger's new appointment as CEO: Roy's SellDisney.com Campaign.

Interesting...

If you want to judge the "Iger Years" based on a couple of months, be my guest. I prefer to have a bit more perspective.

Also, Roy and Stan objected to the process by which Iger was elected. Not Iger himself. Please present your facts correctly or someone may see fit to cast dispersions on your character.

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

I also wanted to point this out:

Almost everyone would agree that the Iger Years, at least in this very early stage, look positive.

Who was for Iger taking Eisners place: Eisner.

Who filed lawsuits in hopes of over-turning Iger's new appointment as CEO: Roy's SellDisney.com Campaign.

Interesting...

I have to admit, Iger has suprised me.

Going back to Roy not attending DL on the 17th for a bit. It shows me that he has no respect for his father and uncle (half or not). If my uncle and father helped build something that affected America, and it was celebrating it's 50th. I would be there, regardless of who else would be there. There will be 49,999 other people there!!

 

[askmike1]

Going back to Roy not attending DL on the 17th for a bit. It shows me that he has no respect for his father and uncle (half or not). If my uncle and father helped build something that affected America, and it was celebrating it's 50th. I would be there, regardless of who else would be there. There will be 49,999 other people there!!

Exactly. At least Diane has her priorities in the right order though.

-Michael

 

[ThreeCircles]

If you want to judge the "Iger Years" based on a couple of months, be my guest. I prefer to have a bit more perspective.

Also, Roy and Stan objected to the process by which Iger was elected. Not Iger himself. Please present your facts correctly or someone may see fit to cast dispersions on your character.

Ahhh...

You should read posts more carefully. I made note that it was very early in Iger's tenure as CEO of TWDC just as I made note of the fact that most people are pretty impressed with his actions so far. To detract from his early accomplishments based on an un-needed pessimism is rather silly.

And, on your second note, you should read the lawsuit more carefully. Or one of your surly unbiased sources, Roy's SellDisney.com site. One of the three main goals of the lawsuit, according to the site, is to enjoin the company from making any changes to either Eisner's or Iger's compensation or contracts. The lawsuit, at least partially, was aimed at stopping Iger from becoming CEO. To suggest otherwise would indicate that you have yet again failed to offer any substantive facts to the discussion and continue on your path of "Roy is god, and Eisner is satan" mantra. (Not that many would expect much else, mind you. :lol: ) So, in effect, I would worry less about the character of others and focus more closely on your own.

Oh, and since you seem inclined to cast personal attacks on others (i.e., reduce the arguments I have presented by the assertion that I am a "Roy-basher"), I would have to ask, why are you so intent on bashing the Walt Disney Company?

 

[Rayray]

Ahhh...

You should read posts more carefully. I made note that it was very early in Iger's tenure as CEO of TWDC just as I made note of the fact that most people are pretty impressed with his actions so far. To detract from his early accomplishments based on an un-needed pessimism is rather silly.

And, on your second note, you should read the lawsuit more carefully. Or one of your surly unbiased sources, Roy's SellDisney.com site. One of the three main goals of the lawsuit, according to the site, is to enjoin the company from making any changes to either Eisner's or Iger's compensation or contracts. The lawsuit, at least partially, was aimed at stopping Iger from becoming CEO. To suggest otherwise would indicate that you have yet again failed to offer any substantive facts to the discussion and continue on your path of "Roy is god, and Eisner is satan" mantra. (Not that many would expect much else, mind you. :lol: ) So, in effect, I would worry less about the character of others and focus more closely on your own.

Oh, and since you seem inclined to cast personal attacks on others (i.e., reduce the arguments I have presented by the assertion that I am a "Roy-basher"), I would have to ask, why are you so intent on bashing the Walt Disney Company?

Maybe I am taking your post too heavily (and please inform me if I am), but I think you may attack the posters more than you attack their arguement. Bring out facts to credit your ideas and discredit the other side's ideas. Judgement of another debator (in this topic of discussion, at least) is not necessary.