There is a number of power players in their 70s, 80s that their millions/billions of dollars will outlive them. Why can't they just retire and enjoy their last stage in life?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.
Agreed. They’re both 80 and greedy…so no trust can really be given.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Unsure who to vote for regarding the Walt Disney Co. Board
- Thread starter durangojim
- Start date
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
That’s a really good question
You have Warren buffet…who just “does what he does” and goes to Dairy Queen everyday…
But he’s the exception…not the rule
The rest are really squirrelly.
Brian
Well-Known Member
I responded that way merely to point out how ridiculous the argument is that anyone daring to support Peltz is doing so for political reasons. I don't actually believe that, and instead believe that people supporting and opposing him both do so in good faith and out of a desire to see Disney reemerge from its current slump. There may be disagreements as to how to go about that, and who will do that vs won't, but that doesn't mean the "opponent" is supporting their board candidates for political reasons.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
100% this.
It really feels like people who dislike Iger are mistaking anti-Peltz for pro Iger.
It's simple, if I am presented with choice A that I don't like, choice B that is worse, and choice C which is potentially disastrous, I choose A while biding my time for another option. That is where many of us are right now.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The inverse is not true for Peltz. Which is why this 'ok, bounces off me, sticks to you' argument doesn't work.
Last edited by a moderator:
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
This forum is about the parks, so most people here will come at the issue from that perspective. In that sense, there simply is no good faith argument in favor of this change. The candidates in question will push to either sell the parks or scrutinize the proposed investment in the parks in the exact way fans have pushed back against for years. The passage you keep quoting makes this plain. Suggesting Trian’s nominees will suddenly get personality transplants if voted in is not arguing in good faith, in my opinion.
WoundedDreamer
Well-Known Member
If that's why people are supporting him, then they're not familiar with Trian Partner's position on social issues and ESG:
Trian Partners
Trian is a multi-billion dollar asset management firm founded by Nelson Peltz and Peter May with the goal of generating capital for investors
trianpartners.com
If Peltz gets on the board, I don't expect any meaningful changes to Disney's approach to social issues. It's all going to be the same. I support Peltz because I want to humiliate Bob Iger.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I don't think Peltz would push to sell the parks... that doesn't help their nest egg of Disney stock... because he doesn't have a new frontier to stick all that money into instead.
But I would expect Peltz to push to break up the other conglomerate angles of the current DIS. I think ultimately Iger and others are going that same direction anyway, they just aren't moving fast enough.
Disney's push into terrestrial broadcast radio and OTA are long in the tooth... great for revenue 30yrs ago... not so much now in the next frontier. I am also of the camp they should be focusing their kind of content, instead of trying to be a single source for every type.
But I would expect Peltz to push to break up the other conglomerate angles of the current DIS. I think ultimately Iger and others are going that same direction anyway, they just aren't moving fast enough.
Disney's push into terrestrial broadcast radio and OTA are long in the tooth... great for revenue 30yrs ago... not so much now in the next frontier. I am also of the camp they should be focusing their kind of content, instead of trying to be a single source for every type.
WoundedDreamer
Well-Known Member
I have to admit that of all the elements of Universal's strategy, I think this is one of the weakest ideas. OLC made the right call when they explored investing in regional entertainment centers. They concluded that it wasn't feasible. If Universal Kids ends up being a huge success, I'll be willing to reappraise the situation. But my gut tells me that this is going to be a precarious investment.
It seems like executives think they will be able to charge nearly as much as their flagship theme parks, while investing a fraction of the amount. It sounds great in theory. We'll see if it works...
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Perlmutter.If that's why people are supporting him, then they're not familiar with Trian Partner's position on social issues and ESG:
Trian Partners
Trian is a multi-billion dollar asset management firm founded by Nelson Peltz and Peter May with the goal of generating capital for investorstrianpartners.com
If Peltz gets on the board, I don't expect any meaningful changes to Disney's approach to social issues. It's all going to be the same. I support Peltz because I want to humiliate Bob Iger.
Oh I am sure that the US Parks are not getting that much, spent on them, that was my main point. They have as noted given NO agenda or anything as to what this arbitrary amount of money they will spend is. Even if they do release what they intend to do with the 60 Billion, it wont end up being what was presented to us. It will be Cut Back and Watered down to half or better in the 10 years it will take them to build a New Attraction, compared to whats down the street and being built in what 3 or 4 years? Even if ONE New attraction takes them 3 or 4 years thats still insane. They have no will to build anything NEW at US Parks
It takes one to know one...
Push into terrestrial/OTA implies to me they are expanding those investments. Radio Disney and ESPN Deportes Radio are defunct and ESPN Radio's presence is greatly diminished compared to pre-covid. I don't think they have really expanded their ownership of ABC or ESPN Radio affiliates in the last 5 years.
Selling off the linear and broadcast non ESPN networks (Freeform, FX Family, Disney Channel family, ABC) are never going to happen because no one will buy them. They are in a managed decline that is probably working as well as it can.
When it comes to ESPN, I think the company would like to be the non-majority shareholder of that entity by like 2050 and shareholders opposing management would like that timeline cut in half or sharper.
WoundedDreamer
Well-Known Member
If we were talking about Perlmutter as CEO, maybe I would be more concerned about it. But we're talking about Peltz and Rasulo being put on the board to pipe in and challenge Iger from time to time in board meetings. I don't think Peltz is going to turbocharge the company's growth. I also don't think he's going to have a significant negative impact. Perlmutter's involvement seems to be based out of spite rather than concrete changes to the business. Peltz and Rasulo will likely agitate towards divestment from legacy media assets (just as @flynnibus noted), which I honestly think is a bonus.
I think there is little downside and some possible upside. And we get to see Iger brought to his knees in disgrace. I might be misreading the risks associated with these board members. But it just doesn't seem like it will have that big an impact on anyone but Iger's ego. Now, if Musk somehow gets involved then we're talking about something different.
Brian
Well-Known Member
Bob Iger appears in a new video on VoteDisney.com discussing the proxy fight.
Direct link to video: CorporateVideo_BobIgerShareholderVideo256Digital16x9H_H264.mp4
Direct link to video: CorporateVideo_BobIgerShareholderVideo256Digital16x9H_H264.mp4
flynnibus
Premium Member
The push I'm referring to is when Disney did it in the past expanding the scope of Disney beyond the content side and into the carrier side post ABC. They did it for the revenue and in the 80s and 90s.. made sense. Now, it's just anchors I think they should divest and should have done long ago. DIS didn't need to be a GE.
People will - they will just be at discount. Tightening DIS's focus will be worth it and will free up the growth side of the numbers.
2050? 25yrs from now? Maybe if you said '25 months' I'd consider your theory. I expect Disney to further distance themselves from this area.. and maybe use ESPN to help sweeten some ABC deal.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Agreed…espn is dying and has been forever
It was in the Rogers critique of the quarterly
1% of houses with espn watch more than 6 hours per month
0.40% watch more than 12 hours
One of the things that is constantly wrong on this board is people talking about ESPN as a lucrative asset. That ended years ago. That argument is meant for 1999
