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

[lazyboy97o]

Exactly my point. Iger was, at minimum, complicit in Rasulo's divestment of the parks business, and he changed his mind when conditions proved that was not a viable strategy, and he is in a far more influential position as CEO (and board member) than Rasulo and Peltz could ever be merely as board members.

Are we really meant to believe that Rasulo can't also change his mind just like Iger did?

Iger changed his mind over a period of time during which Rasulo did not change his mind. Iger also comes from a person position that is more indifferent versus Rasulo’s very open disdain.

As was already stated, you’re positing not just that one person has had a major change of heart, but three different people have all had massive changes of heart and turned against their long held views.

They certainly would care if they're receiving a hefty royalty. That would be a major source of revenue to a company of a much smaller scale (due to being a mere part of the Disney of today).

That’s just more reason to diversify instead of putting all eggs in one basket. But then again, maybe now that things have cooled off with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Perlmutter has also had a sudden, unmentioned change of heart that we just have to assume.

 

[Brian]

He has not indicated that he has changed his mind. Why are you intent on inventing possible scenarios wherein his thoughts on these matters have miraculously changed when no evidence to that effect has been provided?

This may be the third time I've said this tonight: why would Rasulo sign onto a board run with Peltz, who has called the parks the "crown jewel" of Disney and says the $60 billion investment is late and necessary to compete effectively with Disney's peers, if he didn't at minimum tolerate those views, or, more likely, agree with them? 15 years is a long time to change your mind in the face of significantly different economic and business environments.

Iger shifted his thinking when presented with changing circumstances. Why can't Rasulo?

I'm uncertain as to why your preferred strategy is "vote in people with a demonstrably poor track record on the off chance that they might be better than last time even though they've not said they want to be better".

Because the current regime, led by Iger, both had the very same mentality as Rasulo, and got Disney into the position it is in (weakened, a shell of what it used to be).

 

[Sir_Cliff]

This may be the third time I've said this tonight: why would Rasulo sign onto a board run with Peltz, who has called the parks the "crown jewel" of Disney and says the $60 billion investment is late and necessary to compete effectively with Disney's peers, if he didn't at minimum tolerate those views, or, more likely, agree with them? 15 years is a long time to change your mind in the face of significantly different economic and business environments.

Do you really need to ask what Rasulo might be getting out of this other than a second chance to revitalise the parks?

 

[James Alucobond]

This may be the third time I've said this tonight: why would Rasulo sign onto a board run with Peltz, who has called the parks the "crown jewel" of Disney and says the $60 billion investment is late and necessary to compete effectively with Disney's peers, if he didn't at minimum tolerate those views, or, more likely, agree with them?

A crown jewel to be sold. This should be troubling for anyone who likes the parks.

Because the current regime, led by Iger, both had the very same mentality as Rasulo, and got Disney into the position it is in (weakened, a shell of what it used to be).

This continues to make zero sense. Even if you hate Iger and/or what he stands for, you don't invite back in people with the same problematic attitudes who are only joining hands because they're disgruntled. You ask for something better. You're literally just hoping to sow chaos without any real thought to a positive outcome, unless you're deluding yourself with some serious magical thinking.

If your goal is just to see Disney get "owned", by all means proceed, but don't act as if the parks will benefit.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This may be the third time I've said this tonight: why would Rasulo sign onto a board run with Peltz, who has called the parks the "crown jewel" of Disney and says the $60 billion investment is late and necessary to compete effectively with Disney's peers, if he didn't at minimum tolerate those views, or, more likely, agree with them? 15 years is a long time to change your mind in the face of significantly different economic and business environments.

Iger shifted his thinking when presented with changing circumstances. Why can't Rasulo?


Because the current regime, led by Iger, both had the very same mentality as Rasulo, and got Disney into the position it is in (weakened, a shell of what it used to be).

You have been completely suckered by two meaningless, undefined words in which you are projecting your desired preferences. Nothing about recognizing that they have value, especially at a time when studios are facing major shifts, contradicts Rasulo’s “prior” views and the statements about a need to focus on return on investment only reinforce Rasulo’s alignment with those “past” views. Rasulo’s whole strategy was built around the idea that the public loved the parks and would visit not just the existing parks but a collection of timeshare developments across the country as well.

 

[Brian]

You have been completely suckered by two meaningless, undefined words in which you are projecting your desired preferences. Nothing about recognizing that they have value, especially at a time when studios are facing major shifts, contradicts Rasulo’s “prior” views and the statements about a need to focus on return on investment only reinforce Rasulo’s alignment with those “past” views. Rasulo’s whole strategy was built around the idea that the public loved the parks and would visit not just the existing parks but a collection of timeshare developments across the country as well.

I'll give this one last try:

• Disney’s parks have long been a crown jewel of the Company and remain an important part of its future. But even though admission prices have increased by more than 35% over the last ten years,12 Disney recently revealed the need to invest a whopping $60 billion into its parks and cruise lines over the next ten years, seemingly to catch up for delayed or deferred investment.13 Disney has failed to answer how it plans to compete with Universal’s new attractions, why it has not kept pace with development, how and where this money will be spent, or what returns shareholders can expect to earn on this massive investment.

Is your position that he's going to advocate for $60 billion in Genie+ and DAH like stuff to compete with Universal?

Two things can be true at the same time: Disney can invest wisely in their properties around the world to keep pace with mounting competition from Universal while simultaneously delivering returns to the shareholders.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Do you really need to ask what Rasulo might be getting out of this other than a second chance to revitalise the parks?

He would be getting a chance at screwing with Iger…not exactly a “straight shooter”

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'll give this one last try:


Is your position that he's going to advocate for $60 billion in Genie+ and DAH like stuff to compete with Universal?

Two things can be true at the same time: Disney can invest wisely in their properties around the world to keep pace with mounting competition from Universal while simultaneously delivering returns to the shareholders.

Universal is getting into regional entertainment which is obstensibly what Rasulo wanted to do.

 

[BrianLo]

I bet 40 or 50 Billion of the 60 is going to end up in Cruise Lines, not in the Parks.

This is an example of this forums wild hyperbole taking on a life of its own until people start literally believing the nonsense they peddle back and forth to one another. It all reverberates around until posters have convinced themselves Rasulo and Perlmutter are the good guys.

You think DCL is suddenly going to build 25+ ships in the next decade… sincerely… really?

The company has already earmarked 17 of it for WDW. Supposedly. We know the figure, it’s established. How many times does that need repeating. I understand never believing they will spend most of it, that’s a cognizant argument. Vilifying and misunderstanding the cruise segment is getting tiring.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I'll give this one last try:


Is your position that he's going to advocate for $60 billion in Genie+ and DAH like stuff to compete with Universal?

Two things can be true at the same time: Disney can invest wisely in their properties around the world to keep pace with mounting competition from Universal while simultaneously delivering returns to the shareholders.

“Whopping,” “massive” - he’s positioning this investment as inordinately large. These are not adjectives you use if you’re going to call for MORE investment. This is reinforced by his demands for clear ROI on all of the investment, the mentality that has prevented investment. It’s also odd that they complain that Disney hasn’t explained how they will respond to EU… while discussing the recently announced $60 billion investment!

Rasulo and Perlmutter (who you studiously avoid discussing) were major players at Disney during its decline. They were both much worse than Iger. Perlmutter constantly and spitefully tried to undermine the most successful film franchise in history at the height of its reign. He is an unbelievably petty man.

 

[mikejs78]

I'll give this one last try:


Is your position that he's going to advocate for $60 billion in Genie+ and DAH like stuff to compete with Universal?

Two things can be true at the same time: Disney can invest wisely in their properties around the world to keep pace with mounting competition from Universal while simultaneously delivering returns to the shareholders.

Read the statement you posted carefully. Nowhere does it say that Peltz *agreed* with the $60b figure. It's filled with cagy language:

Disney recently revealed the need to invest a whopping $60 billion into its parks and cruise lines over the next ten years, seemingly to catch up for delayed or deferred investment.

Here they are saying that *Disney* revealed the need to invest a *whopping* (i.e. surprisingly large) $60b, *seemingly* (i.e. an assumption of Disney's motives for the $60b).

Disney has failed to answer how it plans to compete with Universal’s new attractions, why it has not kept pace with development, how and where this money will be spent, or what returns shareholders can expect to earn on this massive investment.

Again, cagy about universal. Nowhere does it say that Peltz thinks Disney *needs* to invest, or that it *needs* to keep pace. And then it refers to it as a *massive* investment.

Peltz has you right where he wants shareholders - he wants you to read between the lines and project your own views onto his, even though his are diametrically opposed to what every Disney fan wants.

Notice the difference too, when talking about the action plan for different segments:

For studios:

Initiate a Board-led review of the Company’s
creative processes and structure so that Disney
can once again claim its #1 position at the box
oce while consistently delivering
industry-leading content and Disney hallmarks;

.

Here it's about reclaiming Disney's #1 position at the box office.

DTC:

Insist that management finally develop and
implement an executable plan for the
streaming business in order to achieve
Netflix-like levels of profitability;

Here it's about profitability, achieving Netflix levels.

And now Parks:

Press management to disclose the expected
returns on the $60 billion of announced
investments in the Parks and Experiences
business;

Nothing about a goal for parks; nothing about growth, expansion, etc, but only about *challenging the $60b*.

I don't think you can be convinced because you don't want to be - but there is *nothing* in the letter or the proxy statement that show that Peltz and company have any intention of expanding the parks.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Ooh, maybe Walt Disney Imagineering’s high costs could be addressed by more executive meddling and bureaucracy? Since it’s sure to work at the studio it must work at the parks too, right?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The problem is MORE than just the board. In the words of Jack Nicholsons Joker "This Town Needs an Enema". It not just the Board, it seems to be company wide. They need to focus on Entertainment, not agendas of any sort. Thats the company as a whole. They need to step back from all the Soapboxes and Entertain. Messages in movies are always there just not the Ham Fisted, constant beating customers over the head with whatever message is in Flavor at the Moment. The Parks need help. But they are focused on the Cruise Lines more than the US parks. I bet 40 or 50 Billion of the 60 is going to end up in Cruise Lines, not in the Parks. The Parks (US Parks) are what has saved Disney's butt, how many times. I too dont know if Peltz is right, he scares me as much as the Current Board and Iger. If they were smart, they would split the CEO postion, between a Financial Officer and a Creative Officer ala, Eisner and Wells, I would even say Walt and Roy. Let a Creative create and a Finance Guy figure out if it can work and what they need to make it work. The Board should only step in if they cant or compromise. Disney is too big to be handled day to day by a single CEO. I also say Splitting up Disney is the Death of Disney.

They can’t realistically spend $50 on cruise line

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Ooh, maybe Walt Disney Imagineering’s high costs could be addressed by more executive meddling and bureaucracy? Since it’s sure to work at the studio it must work at the parks too, right?

The parks stuff has been too expensive and pretty “meh” on the whole too

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This is an example of this forums wild hyperbole taking on a life of its own until people start literally believing the nonsense they peddle back and forth to one another. It all reverberates around until posters have convinced themselves Rasulo and Perlmutter are the good guys.

You think DCL is suddenly going to build 25+ ships in the next decade… sincerely… really?

The company has already earmarked 17 of it for WDW. Supposedly. We know the figure, it’s established. How many times does that need repeating. I understand never believing they will spend most of it, that’s a cognizant argument. Vilifying and misunderstanding the cruise segment is getting tiring.

$17 at over 10 years…if you believe that…isn’t gonna go far on their bloated budgets either

 

[flynnibus]

It works both ways. I'll go ahead and assume bad faith, politically-charged motives for those opposing Peltz since they just assume the same about my (rather unenthusiastic) support for him.

If we want to stop being petulant children who make everything political, and actually consider the arguments being made, we'd see that neither those supporting or opposing Peltz on this forum are doing so because of politics, but because of a desire to see Disney succeed.

Dude… you are the one who brought up the assumption about political motives - not others. You can’t dodge your own words and then cry victim.

 

[Brian]

Dude… you are the one who brought up the assumption about political motives - not others. You can’t dodge your own words and then cry victim.

From page one - the first mention of politics in a completely apolitical thread:

The people advocating for Peltz on these boards are largely doing so for for political reasons.

 

[flynnibus]

From page one - the first mention of politics in a completely apolitical thread:

Well there the gap… I don’t read ignored content.

Still don’t agree with how you responded. People are against peltz because of his track record, motivations, and for not putting out any concrete meaningful actions to his claim besides give me board seats.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

“Whopping,” “massive” - he’s positioning this investment as inordinately large. These are not adjectives you use if you’re going to call for MORE investment. This is reinforced by his demands for clear ROI on all of the investment, the mentality that has prevented investment. It’s also odd that they complain that Disney hasn’t explained how they will respond to EU… while discussing the recently announced $60 billion investment!

Well it’s convenient…all of it. The circumstances under the “announcement”…particularly in Florida…and the shape of roughly an Ameoba on details

Bob can throw around big numbers…especially when it’s for……after he “quits…alledgedly…
But until tangible is given…it’s really nothing but machinations on Wall Street.

Rasulo and Perlmutter (who you studiously avoid discussing) were major players at Disney during its decline. They were both much worse than Iger. Perlmutter constantly and spitefully tried to undermine the most successful film franchise in history at the height of its reign. He is an unbelievably petty man.

Agreed. They’re both 80 and greedy…so no trust can really be given.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Well there the gap… I don’t read ignored content.

Still don’t agree with how you responded. People are against peltz because of his track record, motivations, and for not putting out any concrete meaningful actions to his claim besides give me board seats.

It’s amazing how no one’s against Iger controlling the board like a cheap puppet on a string…especially considering the state of things.

Other than people blissfully dropping $10,000 on 3 nights to Nassau on cruiseline…it’s a tire fire

And before anyone blames chapek…let me sell you some magic beans first