Things you never understood about the parks, that maybe somebody can explain

[mergatroid]

Ridiculous.

Any maintenance comes out the millions the parks generate throughout the year, rather than pulling on some injected capital to keep their upkeep.

If you believe Disney have been investing in their theme parks over the past decade then i'm afraid i can't even continue any conversation with you.

Calm down there, I see you edited out the part where I said I could kind of see the point you were making? I'd be interested to see if the money for Avatarland was just money for it's 'upkeep' or injected capital, I'm no expert but if I had to guess would say it's the latter (feel free to provide evidence otherwise though, I'd genuinely be interested and have no issue been proven wrong)

 

[JordanNite]

Wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong. There are distinct legal entities with their own accounting, all of which must follow various laws and regulations. Bob Iger is also not the one sitting there making every single decision.

Utter nonsense.

Yes there are seperate divisions, but they all come under the banner of Disney - be it the television department, movies, theme parks, hotels, etc

It's akin you buying a bakery store, then buying a clothing store. At the end of the day you can do whatever you want with the capital you make. In this case Disney can invest their money in whatever area they wish.

They have invested capital into the parks now and again - namely Cars Land over in California.

 

[JordanNite]

You might as well ask why the President can't just take money from the FDA and give it to NASA.

You sir, have no grasp of economics, and i am not entirely sure why you follow my posts just to make yourself look foolish over and over again.

In this case you have implied (possibly to try and mock my post) that the government can't take money away from the FDA and give it to Nasa. I think you will find this happens all the time, be it now and in the past, where certain government agencies have had their budget cut to support another agencies. For example during the tenure of Kennedy, there were budget cuts to education and transport, but increases to defense and yes you've guessed it NASA !

 

[lazyboy97o]

Utter nonsense.

Yes there are seperate divisions, but they all come under the banner of Disney - be it the television department, movies, theme parks, hotels, etc

It's akin you buying a bakery store, then buying a clothing store. At the end of the day you can do whatever you want with the capital you make. In this case Disney can invest their money in whatever area they wish.

They have invested capital into the parks now and again - namely Cars Land over in California.

They're not just divisions. There are legally distinct entities and none of them are personally owned by Bob Iger. Personally owned businesses are not the same as publicly traded ones.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You sir, have no grasp of economics, and i am not entirely sure why you follow my posts just to make yourself look foolish over and over again.

In this case you have implied (possibly to try and mock my post) that the government can't take money away from the FDA and give it to Nasa. I think you will find this happens all the time, be it now and in the past, where certain government agencies have had their budget cut to support another agencies. For example during the tenure of Kennedy, there were budget cuts to education and transport, but increases to defense and yes you've guessed it NASA !

You should read the Constitution. The President is not the government. He is not an absolute monarch or dictator.

 

[Matt_Black]

And remember, Bob has people to answer to. Just like the President has Congress and the Supreme Court to keep him in check, Iger has the board of directors. He can't use the company as his own personal fiefdom.

 

[JordanNite]

They're not just divisions. There are legally distinct entities and none of them are personally owned by Bob Iger. Personally owned businesses are not the same as publicly traded ones.

They are not seperate legal entities. They are seperate divisions of a company called Disney. Don't talk about something you don't know.

 

[Matt_Black]

Okay, we know you think that Iger personally and single-handedly ruined one of your trips (which, unless he took a dump in your luggage, I don't see as that's possible). It's becoming clear that Iger is to you what the Muppets are to a certain somebody else.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They are not seperate legal entities. They are seperate divisions of a company called Disney. Don't talk about something you don't know.

Maybe you should take your own advise. Units like the Walt Disney World Company are a distinct subsidiary.

 

[G00fyDad]

Ah, but they do work that way. At the end of the day Bob Iger controls the company and can divert funds to where he so wishes.

Utter nonsense.

Yes there are seperate divisions, but they all come under the banner of Disney - be it the television department, movies, theme parks, hotels, etc

It's akin you buying a bakery store, then buying a clothing store. At the end of the day you can do whatever you want with the capital you make. In this case Disney can invest their money in whatever area they wish.

They have invested capital into the parks now and again - namely Cars Land over in California.

I truly mean no offense here so don't get all damaged by this comment, but you need a business course in college. Really. Business does not work this way. Iger does not get to sit back in his pile of riches at the end of the day and say "I think that tomorrow I'll spend some of this 400 billion in the parks!"

 

[Matt_Black]

I truly mean no offense here so don't get all damaged by this comment, but you need a business course in college. Really. Business does not work this way. Iger does not get to sit back in his pile of riches at the end of the day and say "I think that tomorrow I'll spend some of this 400 billion in the parks!"

Maybe he confused Iger with Scrooge McDuck?

 

[jaklgreen]

Ah, but they do work that way. At the end of the day Bob Iger controls the company and can divert funds to where he so wishes.

LOL You just gave my hubby and me a good laugh for the day.

 

[Matt_Black]

I have no idea how Disney companies are organized, but I can share a fact about businesses in general. The CEO of a parent company (with approvals from the BoD, etc.) can request/direct funds to be moved from one subsidiary to another, or from the parent company to a subsidiary. I work for a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a large company and I have seen the movement of funds across subsidiaries.

Yes, but the key word there, as you noted, is with approvals. A proposal has to be submitted, the board has to be gathered, discussion is had, a vote is taken, etc.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I have no idea how Disney companies are organized, but I can share a fact about businesses in general. The CEO of a parent company (with approvals from the BoD, etc.) can request/direct funds to be moved from one subsidiary to another, or from the parent company to a subsidiary. I work for a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a large company and I have seen the movement of funds across subsidiaries.

As @Matt_Black noted, it must all be done within a process, not on a whim as could be done with very small companies owned by an individual. Disney also touts the primacy of the Studio, so such moves would be questioned by institutional shareholders and analysts.

 

[Matt_Black]

Even in the first Iron Man film, Tony couldn't do what ever he wanted. Obadiah ran interference with the board before he went cliche action movie villain.

 

[THEMEPARKPIONEER]

Why does World Showcase at Epcot open at 11AM?

Because if it didn't no one would even know Future World exists.

 

[TimothyG]

Can Disney move money from one subsidiary to another? Sure, with enough approvals it could happen. But do you understand how insanely difficult that will be? Corporations have politics and I'm pretty sure that Studio Entertainment is not going to be okay with you cutting their budget to prop up another segment that is already hugely profitable on it's own. You're going to have a lot of people up in arms about that and cause a lot of internal drama if you do that.

And there's a huge risk to doing that. If you would have cut Frozen ($150M), you would have missed out on $1.27B in revenue. Studio Entertainment has a huge effect on the company: potential rides (and gift shops), movie sales, merchandise sales, etc. It's literally where just about every single one of the characters in the parks come from.

 

[Matt_Black]

And there's a huge risk to doing that. If you would have cut Frozen ($150M), you would have missed out on $1.27B in revenue. Studio Entertainment has a huge effect on the company: potential rides (and gift shops), movie sales, merchandise sales, etc. It's literally where just about every single one of the characters in the parks come from.

You realize, of course, that this statement will open the door for snooty comebacks about Figment or the Country Bears, yes?

 

[TimothyG]

You realize, of course, that this statement will open the door for snooty comebacks about Figment or the Country Bears, yes?

I never said all!

 

[Matt_Black]

I never said all!

Some folks on this board won't care. Like hyenas, they will pounce when they sense the slightest weakness and tear into your flesh without mercy.