Unsure who to vote for regarding the Walt Disney Co. Board

[lazyboy97o]

I see your point - my point is that web needs to be untangled for the benefit (or detriment) of each corporate entity in much the same manner Tesla and Boring and SpaceX and Meta and Alphabet and Facebook and Google and Twitter and (insert more here) are. I think Parks would have the better chance of survival while the others, not so much.

I now have even less of an idea of the point you’re trying to make.

Tesla, Boring Company, SpaceX are all completely separate companies and only Tesla is a public company.

Alphabet is a holding company that was created from Google. It turned different aspects of Google into distinct companies, but all generally owned by Alphabet.

You’re pointing to radically different types of organization.

 

[Laketravis]

You’re pointing to radically different types of organization.

Exactly.

I mistakenly used the label "public" globally when it wasn't applicable to many of those examples, but my overall point was simple. It could be extremely beneficial for Parks if the various divisions were re-established as their own distinct public companies.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

My thought is that if they were elected, could it be conceivable that it would put enough pressure on Iger and the existing board members to try to go back to what makes Disney, Disney? I'm not sure but in some ways I'd like to find out.

I just don't understand what would make anyone think that would happen.

This thread and the tone of a lot of the discussions on here lately drives me toward thinking we're at a moment of après Iger, le déluge. Even people who are supposedly fans of Disney seem to have embraced this kind of nihilistic attitude that the company may as well be bled dry, dismembered, and sold for parts as a way of... getting back at Iger? Giving their displeasure with Iger some form of visceral expression? Manifesting the destruction of the company they attribute to Iger?

It's one thing to see what Iger is doing wrong and wanting to correct these errors and get the company back on track. It's another to be willing to embrace people who will almost certainly make all of the things you say you don't like worse because, eh, shoot em all and let god sort em out.

 

[Laketravis]

I just don't understand what would make anyone think that would happen.

This thread and the tone of a lot of the discussions on here lately drives me toward thinking we're at a moment of après Iger, le déluge. Even people who are supposedly fans of Disney seem to have embraced this kind of nihilistic attitude that the company may as well be bled dry, dismembered, and sold for parts as a way of... getting back at Iger? Giving their displeasure with Iger some form of visceral expression? Manifesting the destruction of the company they attribute to Iger?

It's one thing to see what Iger is doing wrong and wanting to correct these errors and get the company back on track. It's another to be willing to embrace people who will almost certainly make all of the things you say you don't like worse because, eh, shoot em all and let god sort em out.

For me it has nothing to do with Iger, it has more to do with having only one CEO for such a large and diverse conglomerate. I can't help but think Parks could do so much better with it's own CEO.

I think even Walt would have been challenged as CEO of what his legacy has become.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Exactly.

I mistakenly used the label "public" globally when it wasn't applicable to many of those examples, but my overall point was simple. It could be extremely beneficial for Parks if the various divisions were re-established as their own distinct public companies.

So you do want the parks split off? There’s already a separate company running the parks. The only way they become public is to split them off and start selling shares.

For me it has nothing to do with Iger, it has more to do with having only one CEO for such a large and diverse conglomerate. I can't help but think Parks could do so much better with it's own CEO.

I think even Walt would have been challenged as CEO of what his legacy has become.

Walt was never CEO. The Chairman of Parks, Experiences and Consumer products holds the role that could otherwise be called CEO.

 

[Laketravis]

So you do want the parks split off? There’s already a separate company running the parks. The only way they become public is to split them off and start selling shares.

Referring back to my original post, I think for several reasons it would be beneficial for Parks to be it's own separate, public company. So yes.

Walt was never CEO. The Chairman of Parks, Experiences and Consumer products holds the role that could otherwise be called CEO.

I realize Walt was never CEO, I said it would be a challenge even for him to be the sole CEO today (and to perhaps continue to effectively execute his vision).

But the main and original point is that Peltz has stated he thinks the company is too big and should be broken out into individual, public companies. I do tend to agree with that. My logic that follows is if the company is too big, it's also too big for one CEO. So again, yes I think Parks stands to benefit the most out of all the divisions to be broken out as it's own public company with dedicated CEO. A Chairman may also function as Chairman and CEO but I don't believe the current framework motivates D'Amaro who still takes orders from Iger and isn't as invested as he should be.

Now most certainly the risk is that Peltz follows thru, succeeds in breaking out the various divisions into their own separate public companies, and then - shocker - arranges for M&A of the poor performers. I think Parks is the keeper though, because even someone as sinister as Peltz doesn't sell off winners, they sell off losers.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Referring back to my original post, I think for several reasons it would be beneficial for Parks to be it's own separate, public company. So yes.



I realize Walt was never CEO, I said it would be a challenge even for him to be the sole CEO today (and to perhaps continue to effectively execute his vision).

But the main and original point is that Peltz has stated he thinks the company is too big and should be broken out into individual, public companies. I do tend to agree with that. My logic that follows is if the company is too big, it's also too big for one CEO. So again, yes I think Parks stands to benefit the most out of all the divisions to be broken out as it's own public company with dedicated CEO. A Chairman may also function as Chairman and CEO but I don't believe the current framework motivates D'Amaro still takes orders from Iger and isn't as invested as he should be.

Now most certainly the risk is that Peltz follows thru, succeeds in breaking out the various divisions into their own separate public companies, and then - shocker - arranges for M&A of the poor performers. I think Parks is the keeper though, because even someone as sinister as Peltz doesn't sell off winners, they sell off losers.

Going public means you are selling it off, you’re selling it off to the public instead of a single entity.

There’s a reason that the independent amusement park operators don’t do heavily themed environments. Being a separate company entirely devoted to “shareholder value” means more scrutiny on elements that don’t generate revenue either directly or through direct attribution. That means no investment to increase capacity unless it is absolutely dirt cheap like an off-the-shelf flat ride. That means the focus on driving attendance will be bare roller coasters as they represent the undisputed best return on investment. Modern Six Flags didn’t come about out of malice.

 

[Dranth]

If a bunch of you really want the company split up, why are you not considering the Blackwell nominees?

They at least have a plan unlike Peltz. Even today they called out how they want to break the company up into three distinct corporations; Sports, Entertainment and Resorts. Oh, and dump all the land ownings into a REIT so they can milk the assets for even more money.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Oh, and dump all the land ownings into a REIT so they can milk the assets for even more money.

Ah, the Sears model. That’s going great for them.

 

[Laketravis]

Going public means you are selling it off, you’re selling it off to the public instead of a single entity.

I totally understand what going public means.

There’s a reason that the independent amusement park operators don’t do heavily themed environments. Being a separate company entirely devoted to “shareholder value” means more scrutiny on elements that don’t generate revenue either directly or through direct attribution. That means no investment to increase capacity

Which is somewhat where we are now. And I don't agree that's the reason why regional operators "don't do heavily themed environments".

ETA: Since you mentioned Six Flags, the reason they do what they do is because there is a huge market for it. In fact, once their merger with Cedar Fair is complete, they will be second only to Disney in worldwide attendance figures.

 

[durangojim]

I just don't understand what would make anyone think that would happen.

This thread and the tone of a lot of the discussions on here lately drives me toward thinking we're at a moment of après Iger, le déluge. Even people who are supposedly fans of Disney seem to have embraced this kind of nihilistic attitude that the company may as well be bled dry, dismembered, and sold for parts as a way of... getting back at Iger? Giving their displeasure with Iger some form of visceral expression? Manifesting the destruction of the company they attribute to Iger?

It's one thing to see what Iger is doing wrong and wanting to correct these errors and get the company back on track. It's another to be willing to embrace people who will almost certainly make all of the things you say you don't like worse because, eh, shoot em all and let god sort em out.

I don't want to see Disney burn, I don't have a grudge against Iger. But the Disney company today, and specifically the parks are not what they were 10, 15, 20, years ago. Disney has lost much or most of it's magic and I don't see anyone on the current board who is willing to try to bring it back. Nor do I think that Peltz and company will try to do it either, but, maybe just maybe there are some on the board including Iger who remember what a great company Disney used to be and how the parks provided value to their guests and shareholders and would be willing to do some things they otherwise wouldn't consider without the extra pressure Peltz would provide. Maybe I'm being naïve but again, at this point I'm willing to risk it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't want to see Disney burn, I don't have a grudge against Iger. But the Disney company today, and specifically the parks are not what they were 10, 15, 20, years ago. Disney has lost much or most of it's magic and I don't see anyone on the current board who is willing to try to bring it back. Nor do I think that Peltz and company will try to do it either, but, maybe just maybe there are some on the board including Iger who remember what a great company Disney used to be and how the parks provided value to their guests and shareholders and would be willing to do some things they otherwise wouldn't consider without the extra pressure Peltz would provide. Maybe I'm being naïve but again, at this point I'm willing to risk it.

How does Peltz provide that pressure when he would be pressuring for the opposite?

 

[Indy_UK]

Let’s be fair though. Comcast owns Universal but universal work quite independently under Comcast no? I don’t think Comcast use park profits to fund peacock which is dying. Lowes seem to do a great job of being in charge of the Universal hotels.

 

[Dranth]

Ah, the Sears model. That’s going great for them.

Yep. It is a moronic move focused on short term gain but at least it has more details than Peltz great analysis of "They should do all those things they already did."

 

[Laketravis]

Let’s be fair though. Comcast owns Universal but universal work quite independently under Comcast no? I don’t think Comcast use park profits to fund peacock which is dying. Lowes seem to do a great job of being in charge of the Disney hotels.

Good points.

 

[Dranth]

Let’s be fair though. Comcast owns Universal but universal work quite independently under Comcast no? I don’t think Comcast use park profits to fund peacock which is dying. Lowes seem to do a great job of being in charge of the Disney hotels.

Where do you think the money for peacock comes from? They have to be pulling it from some part of their business and cable is already taking a beating. That leaves internet, studios and parks. My guess is all three of those eat a part of it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Let’s be fair though. Comcast owns Universal but universal work quite independently under Comcast no? I don’t think Comcast use park profits to fund peacock which is dying. Lowes seem to do a great job of being in charge of the Disney hotels.

Fast and Furious: Supercharged is a giant monument to the horrors of corporate meddling.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I don't want to see Disney burn, I don't have a grudge against Iger. But the Disney company today, and specifically the parks are not what they were 10, 15, 20, years ago. Disney has lost much or most of it's magic and I don't see anyone on the current board who is willing to try to bring it back. Nor do I think that Peltz and company will try to do it either, but, maybe just maybe there are some on the board including Iger who remember what a great company Disney used to be and how the parks provided value to their guests and shareholders and would be willing to do some things they otherwise wouldn't consider without the extra pressure Peltz would provide. Maybe I'm being naïve but again, at this point I'm willing to risk it.

But I don't understand why anyone would think the extra pressure brought by Peltz and Resulo would be, for example, to invest more heavily in the parks and stop the price gouging. If anything, the pressure would be in the other direction. I agree we've seen a decline in guest experience at the parks, but that doesn't mean I'd roll the dice on someone whose entire career suggests he'd rather milk them even further for profits on the off chance that didn't happen.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

I think TWDC is too big for any one person to be in charge of. The parks, movies, and streaming should be one company. ESPN and ABC should be sold off to die a slow death and be milked for dividends (one last puff of the cigar, as Warren Buffett used to say).

 

[mikejs78]

I think TWDC is too big for any one person to be in charge of. The parks, movies, and streaming should be one company. ESPN and ABC should be sold off to die a slow death and be milked for dividends (one last puff of the cigar, as Warren Buffett used to say).

The problem is no one wants to buy ABC/ESPN.