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

[Casper Gutman]

He can’t be trusted to leave…and that is unacceptable since he was given the job to CORRECT that problem - along with others.

He’s doing all the same things on a magnified scale now.

That’s the issue. His ego believes he’s the company…and he certainly is not. It will outlive him…so let’s go ahead and get to the next chapter.

This thinking ensures that the next chapter will be MUCH worse. Quite frankly, it's childish.

Almost everyone on these boards wants Iger gone. It matters a lot how that happens.

 

[Casper Gutman]

“Best of bad” is an impossible choice to make

That’s where we are

Choosing "best of bad" is most of life. It's what adults do ALL THE TIME.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I’m 100% sure where my 2K-ish share is voting…unless another slate is put up by the spineless hedges

Come on, State Strett

Funny enough… it came today.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I’m not saying you need to like Iger or his tenure.

Bringing Peltz on the board doesn’t get rid of Iger.

You don’t have to support Iger. But you shouldn’t support someone objectively worse.

That’s why I’ll vote for neither

And hope more alternate slates pop up

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Funny enough… it came today.

…I’ve been busy

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Choosing "best of bad" is most of life. It's what adults do ALL THE TIME.

I’ll remember that if and when I get there

 

[WoundedDreamer]

The current argument isn't about wanting Iger gone, its about empowering individuals who are exponentially worse in very similar ways. Your arguments in favor of Peltz largely center on the idea that tremendously arrogant, incredibly wealthy old men have completely changed the views that have determined their actions for decades without telling anyone. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. You cite documents that say the opposite of what you claim. You refuse to discuss Perlmutter, who is in many ways the lynchpin of the entire struggle.

Oh no! Peltz will run The Walt Disney Company in an attempt to maximize short-term margins! Oh no! Peltz will shirk on investing in the parks in order to maximize shareholder value! Oh no! Peltz will lean into synergy in the parks and not build original rides! Oh no! Peltz will only release remakes and franchise films!

Peltz is "exponentially worse?" Do tell, what exactly is he going to do to the parks that have not already been done? Run them like they're going out of business? Oh wait, that was Iger. Destroy beloved attractions because they're too cheap to maintain them? Oh wait, that was Iger too. Release dumb software that complicates the experience? Wait, that was Iger and his protege Chapek. Convert hotel inventory into Disney Vacation Club points for short-term profit boosts? Iger again. Maybe Peltz will sell existing parts of the guest experience, like FastPass, for additional cost? No, they're already doing that.

I'm struggling to imagine how two board seats will destroy the company and bring it to its knees. Enlighten me, how are two board members going to immeasurably damage the company? Peltz is a way of getting under Iger's skin and potentially speeding up the spinoff of ABC/ESPN. All good things in my book. Not bringing Peltz onto the board will result in more Iger management skills.

I still love Iger's big epiphany after 25 years in executive leadership that expanding capacity is good way to deal with crowds at the parks. That's what Disney pays him the big bucks for!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney Leverages Blockbuster Earnings to Urge Shareholders to Vote for Its Board Members: 'Stage Is Now Set for Significant Growth and Success'

The entertainment giant also stressed its 50% dividend increase and a $3 billion share purchase.

www.thewrap.com

In case no one is watching…this is truly pathetic…and proves exaclty what it
Looked like last week: An elaborate spun show in the quarterly just to save Bob and his cushy board room

It’s about as clever as the fake Bob geldoff character throwing the show for the villain at the end of the Jewel of the Nile

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Oh no! Peltz will run The Walt Disney Company in an attempt to maximize short-term margins! Oh no! Peltz will shirk on investing in the parks in order to maximize shareholder value! Oh no! Peltz will lean into synergy in the parks and not build original rides! Oh no! Peltz will only release remakes and franchise films!

Peltz is "exponentially worse?" Do tell, what exactly is he going to do to the parks that have not already been done? Run them like they're going out of business? Oh wait, that was Iger. Destroy beloved attractions because they're too cheap to maintain them? Oh wait, that was Iger too. Release dumb software that complicates the experience? Wait, that was Iger and his protege Chapek. Convert hotel inventory into Disney Vacation Club points for short-term profit boosts? Iger again. Maybe Peltz will sell existing parts of the guest experience, like FastPass, for additional cost? No, they're already doing that.

I'm struggling to imagine how two board seats will destroy the company and bring it to its knees. Enlighten me, how are two board members going to immeasurably damage the company? Peltz is a way of getting under Iger's skin and potentially speeding up the spinoff of ABC/ESPN. All good things in my book. Not bringing Peltz onto the board will result in more Iger management skills.

I still love Iger's big epiphany after 25 years in executive leadership that expanding capacity is good way to deal with crowds at the parks. That's what Disney pays him the big bucks for!

…you are starting to make too much sense…and you know too much

I’m gonna have to step
Lightly here

 

[Casper Gutman]

Oh no! Peltz will run The Walt Disney Company in an attempt to maximize short-term margins! Oh no! Peltz will shirk on investing in the parks in order to maximize shareholder value! Oh no! Peltz will lean into synergy in the parks and not build original rides! Oh no! Peltz will only release remakes and franchise films!

Peltz is "exponentially worse?" Do tell, what exactly is he going to do to the parks that have not already been done? Run them like they're going out of business? Oh wait, that was Iger. Destroy beloved attractions because they're too cheap to maintain them? Oh wait, that was Iger too. Release dumb software that complicates the experience? Wait, that was Iger and his protege Chapek. Convert hotel inventory into Disney Vacation Club points for short-term profit boosts? Iger again. Maybe Peltz will sell existing parts of the guest experience, like FastPass, for additional cost? No, they're already doing that.

I'm struggling to imagine how two board seats will destroy the company and bring it to its knees. Enlighten me, how are two board members going to immeasurably damage the company? Peltz is a way of getting under Iger's skin and potentially speeding up the spinoff of ABC/ESPN. All good things in my book. Not bringing Peltz onto the board will result in more Iger management skills.

I still love Iger's big epiphany after 25 years in executive leadership that expanding capacity is good way to deal with crowds at the parks. That's what Disney pays him the big bucks for!

It is utterly amazing that you are incapable of understanding how much worse it can get.

I have yet to see how putting two people on the board who will aggressively seek to undermine Iger's all-too-rare attempts to invest in the park will make anything better. It's an entirely emotional impulse, totally devoid of logic,

By the way, every studio in Hollywood "only releases remakes and franchise films!" That's the way the industry is structured because that's what AUDIENCES GO TO SEE! Blaming Iger for that is just profoundly unserious,

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You've seen me on these boards. You saw me criticize almost everything Iger did in the parks for years and years. You've seen me argue with Penguin about the parks on many occasions. You've liked and agreed with many of my posts.

But you are so totally, irrationally twisted with wrath that any moderation or reasonableness is anathema to you. You are arguing not just with me but with several of the most cogent, insightful Iger critics because they don't share your willingness to cut off your nose to spite your face.

And you have twisted yourself into the shape of your worst allies. Over Disney.

I haven’t twisted myself into anything

By saying “it will be worse”…you’re activating the worst of all boogiemen. It’s how power is abused easily and we have been watching that with this board or years…not 2 or 5…more like to the day Steve Jobs died.

Many people are concentrating on the trees when the forest is on fire.

And here’s the problem…you were disingenuous with that politics nonsense. It was out of line and I’m tossing it back. Not the first time either. Disney pulled the most cynical, cultural appropriating stunt I can remember last year…and that apparently makes me the bigot? That innuendo game
Is neither original nor clever. Sometimes you gotta stop and look to which way is “up “

Wanting a new management…however we get there…is the right call.

Hell…I don’t want Peltz or dull Jay…not at all…or the Blackwells people.

What I want…is a firm transition. By april. An announcement and a transition till 12/31

Pick up the phone…call a person. Call two people. They’ll say yes. I swear.

But that shows a level of grace that Bob can’t conjure. What a ridiculous circus this has been? It’s embarrassing.

He makes his predecessor look like the Prince of Grace. Who called Diane Disney during the war and announced his resignation the day after she said “…It’s time”. What a simpler time.

This is ego.

…let lazy know and maybe we can all discuss it?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Voting to spite someone is not inherently tantamount to voting for political reasons. Though, for the record, I will not be directing my paltry remaining shares based on a desire (or lack thereof) to spite anyone. I will do so based on my perception of what is best for the company, much of which was shaped by several decades of working for it.

You continue to take this elementary view that because Iger espouses left-wing views, anyone who disagrees with him must be voting for Peltz: 1.) to "get at Iger" for political reasons, and/or 2.) because Peltz is ostensibly, and Perlmutter indisputably, ideological conservatives, so having Peltz on the board would somehow undermine the left-wing ideology which the company has unapologetically embraced in recent years.

This theory fails upon even the slightest bit of scrutiny. Peltz would not be able to effectively undermine the company's political and social dealings even if he wanted to, and the evidence he would even want to in the first place remains scant. It is abundantly clear that Peltz's motivations are monetary, something I believe you and I can both agree on.

Those who support Peltz and Rasulo do so for a variety of reasons, but the political motivations are simply not grounded in reality.

When it comes to Perlmutter, yes, he is involved in this proxy battle. But I must wonder why you continue to insist that myself and others acknowledge him when he is not the one in consideration for a board seat. None of this is to say that he would not wield influence if Peltz and Rasulo are successful, but at the end of the day, he would not be on the board and would remain out of reach of the levers of power. Is your laser-like focus on him motivated by your politics? If not, why harp on him as you have the last few days? What's the point you're trying to convey by continuing to invoke his name without any other context?

Finally, regarding Iger: whether Peltz and Rasulo, or even the Blackwells nominees too, get in or not, Iger isn't going anywhere until he's ready to. In fact, Trian made recommendations against two board members (Froman and Lagomasino), but made no mention of Iger when it comes to his seat on the board, or as CEO.

Hypothetically, even if they were to somehow oust Iger, the replacement would be of the same ideological mindset. There is no realistic circumstance in which Disney selects a CEO who would be of the same mind as those who would identify as an ideological conservative.

You and every other Peltz backer could back the Blackwell slate for the board. It would fulfill every goal you claim to have, but without empowering Peltz and Perlmutter and Rasulo. But you and other Peltz advocates never consider this. There's a reason for that.

This isn't about Iger. It's about punishing or destroying Disney.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It is utterly amazing that you are incapable of understanding how much worse it can get.

I have yet to see how putting two people on the board who will aggressively seek to undermine Iger's all-too-rare attempts to invest in the park will make anything better. It's an entirely emotional impulse, totally devoid of logic,

By the way, every studio in Hollywood "only releases remakes and franchise films!" That's the way the industry is structured because that's what AUDIENCES GO TO SEE! Blaming Iger for that is just profoundly unserious,

Why don’t you lay it out then?

“You have no idea how much worse it can get…”

That’s just a platitude to appear to be in possession of “hidden wisdom”

Again…another tactic.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Again… voting in Peltz doesn't get rid of Iger.

Voting for “board approved” appointees will?

They actually sent that out today. I don’t know if that’s sad…corrupt…or a word not invented yet?

Is this like the Augusta National?

“Our people”?

That goes 100% contrary to good governance of a public company.

 

[Brian]

You and every other Peltz backer could back the Blackwell slate for the board. It would fulfill every goal you claim to have, but without empowering Peltz and Perlmutter and Rasulo. But you and other Peltz advocates never consider this. There's a reason for that.

This isn't about Iger. It's about punishing or destroying Disney.

You're playing the same disingenuous game you play in the Reedy Creek thread - sure, the motivations and goals behind the anti-Disney effort are toxic and the people involved are deeply corrupt but they wouldn't REALLY have that much power, so let's just go with it.

And again, "conservative" is the completely wrong word for any of this. There is nothing the least bit "conservative" about those backing Peltz. It's radicalism.

That doesn't address any of the points I made, but thanks for the free lecture, I guess.

 

[peter11435]

Voting for “board approved” appointees will?

They actually sent that out today. I don’t know if that’s sad…corrupt…or a word not invented yet?

Is this like the Augusta National?

“Our people”?

That goes 100% contrary to good governance of a public company.

It’s almost like you have no experience in corporate America which is weird because I know you do.

 

[Casper Gutman]

That doesn't address any of the points I made, but thanks for the free lecture, I guess.

Pointing out the silliness or, worse, disingenuousness of the, "sure, these people might be awful and destructive, but they won't really have meaningful power" argument seems to me to address quite a lot of your post. If these new board members will be so powerless and Iger will just stick around as long as he likes, what's the point?

So why aren't you backing the Blackwell slate?

 

[Brian]

Pointing out the silliness or, worse, disingenuousness of the, "sure, these people might be awful and destructive, but they won't really have meaningful power" argument seems to me to address quite a lot of your post. If these new board members will be so powerless and Iger will just stick around as long as he likes, what's the point?

So why aren't you backing the Blackwell slate?

It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be. No executive at the company would send a call from a board member to voicemail (and not call them back), and each of them has the opportunity to convince their fellow directors of their positions.

It's true: Iger won't be going anywhere even if Peltz and Rasulo are on the board. There are too many Iger loyalists on the board. That doesn't mean they can't help sway them in the right direction when it comes to big picture items like creative strategy, experiences investments, etc.

Anything they'd want to do, they would have to convince several of their fellow directors to lend their support. Things like getting rid of Iger or DEI are non-starters for the board.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

This will absolutely blow your mind because I'm sure you are totally unaware of it, but there has been a huge, incredibly well-funded effort by a network of media outlets, influencers, and politicians to label Disney as culture war enemy #1 and to harm or destroy it. A lot of vociferous posters on this board have bought into this and will advocate for anything they think will hurt current Disney - for instance, putting a massively destructive corporate raider on the board.

I know you're being facetious, and yes I did know about that. What I'm less certain about (and what I was broaching in my original post) is why conservatives latched onto Peltz. He's not exactly anyone's idea of a conservative hero. All signs point to him having roughly the same political outlook as Iger. It is curious.

I've been an anti-Iger guy for about a decade. Well before Iger and Disney came to be embroiled in the culture war. Iger's issues started many years ago. Bashing Iger on these boards was a favorite pastime all throughout the 2010s (as you know). There's a contingent of people who just really don't like Iger. No politics required.

It is utterly amazing that you are incapable of understanding how much worse it can get.

I have yet to see how putting two people on the board who will aggressively seek to undermine Iger's all-too-rare attempts to invest in the park will make anything better. It's an entirely emotional impulse, totally devoid of logic,

By the way, every studio in Hollywood "only releases remakes and franchise films!" That's the way the industry is structured because that's what AUDIENCES GO TO SEE! Blaming Iger for that is just profoundly unserious,

Be specific. How could it get worse? Could they leave areas of the world's most-attended theme park vacant while the park overcrowds? Oh wait, that's been done. Maybe they outsource IT? No, that's been done. Maybe they cut back on air conditioning? Done. They could leave audioanimtronic figures broken and lifeless... Done. They could chop down huge swaths of forests to build new freeway ramps and solar panels. Done. Maybe they could eliminate beloved musicians and entertainment that had been around for decades? Done. Perhaps they would replace audio animatronics with screens and projections. Done. What if they cancelled a night time parade at Magic Kingdom? Done. Or maybe they could start leaving burnt out lights on the outsides of buildings. Done.

And on and on.

So, what you're saying is that I could expect franchise films and remakes regardless of who is in leadership? Then why does it matter if Iger is the one pulling the trigger on Toy Story 22? He's expendable.

 

[Brian]

I know you're being facetious, and yes I did know about that. What I'm less certain about (and what I was broaching in my original post) is why conservatives latched onto Peltz. He's not exactly anyone's idea of a conservative hero. All signs point to him having roughly the same political outlook as Iger. It is curious.

I've been an anti-Iger guy for about a decade. Well before Iger and Disney came to be embroiled in the culture war. Iger's issues started many years ago. Bashing Iger on these boards was a favorite pastime all throughout the 2010s (as you know). There's a contingent of people who just really don't like Iger. No politics required.

Be specific. How could it get worse? Could they leave areas of the world's most-attended theme park vacant while the park overcrowds? Oh wait, that's been done. Maybe they outsource IT? No, that's been done. Maybe they cut back on air conditioning? Done. They could leave audioanimtronic figures broken and lifeless... Done. They could chop down huge swaths of forests to build new freeway ramps and solar panels. Done. Maybe they could eliminate beloved musicians and entertainment that had been around for decades? Done. Perhaps they would replace audio animatronics with screens and projections. Done. What if they cancelled a night time parade at Magic Kingdom? Done. Or maybe they could start leaving burnt out lights on the outsides of buildings. Done.

And on and on.

So, what you're saying is that I could expect franchise films and remakes regardless of who is in leadership? Then why does it matter if Iger is the one pulling the trigger on Toy Story 22? He's expendable.

Who needs specifics when you have vagueness and hyperbole?