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

[Casper Gutman]

These are Trian's own words. How are we to read this statement and say that he would never expand the parks? What would the $60 billion go towards?

It’s campaign material. You know what those words are worth. Peltz has a long track record and we know his motives - he is concerned with dividends and quick gains.

 

[lazyboy97o]

These are Trian's own words. How are we to read this statement and say that he would never expand the parks? What would the $60 billion go towards? If anything, he's saying they are behind on expansion and panning them for that.

We could look at what Rasulo actually did as chairman of Parks & Resorts. Do tell us how it was good of him to clash with Ouimet about cleaning up the Disneyland Resort.

 

[Andrew C]

These are Trian's own words. How are we to read this statement and say that he would never expand the parks? What would the $60 billion go towards? If anything, he's saying they are behind on expansion and panning them for that.

That note about Disney not being able to answer on how they plan to compete with Universal's new attractions speaks to many people on this forum. Does that speak to shareholders is probably the question though.

 

[Brian]

It’s campaign material. You know what those words are worth. Peltz has a long track record and we know his motives - he is concerned with dividends and quick gains.

One would assume that making intentional misrepresentations to the shareholders as part of a board seat campaign for a publicly traded company would be, at minimum, legally perilous, if not fully illegal, but I'm no expert in that regard.

 

[Brian]

We could look at what Rasulo actually did as chairman of Parks & Resorts. Do tell us how it was good of him to clash with Ouimet about cleaning up the Disneyland Resort.

You're right. Everyone knows that the one thing about human nature is that nobody ever changes their positions based on the evidence presented. What was viewed as necessary over a decade ago is always going to be identical to what is necessary today.

 

[Casper Gutman]

We could look at what Rasulo actually did as chairman of Parks & Resorts. Do tell us how it was good of him to clash with Ouimet about cleaning up the Disneyland Resort.

And we know exactly how Perlmutter has behaved at Marvel and what he tried to do to the most successful film franchise in history. None of this is secret.

By the way - what effect do Peltz’s advocates feel he will have on the studios?

 

[monothingie]

That note about Disney not being able to answer on how they plan to compete with Universal's new attractions speaks to many people on this forum. Does that speak to shareholders is probably the question though.

It's actually refreshing to see that there is thought about the Theme Parks since they essentially fund the rest of the company, when all the cool kids only talk about streaming.

 

[Ayla]

Peltz and his track record show exactly how he would run Disney if allowed. Slash costs for shareholder value. I'm not sure why anyone would expect him to have a sudden reversal in strategy with Disney and not just do what he has always done when involved in a company. His deals never "work out as planned" and end up with the company in worse shape.

Peltz is a corporate raider. Period.

 

[monothingie]

Peltz is a corporate raider. Period.

And Disney has put themselves in a position to be "raided" strictly through their own actions.

 

[Indy_UK]

And we know exactly how Perlmutter has behaved at Marvel and what he tried to do to the most successful film franchise in history. None of this is secret.

By the way - what effect do Peltz’s advocates feel he will have on the studios?

Apart from merging his shares with Peltz, Perlmutter is not going to make any difference so he’s a mute point really?

Again, I don’t like Peltz, but he probably has some common sense between the ears like most armchair imagineers who are all saying the most obvious things that the studios need to do, like reduce the stupidly high production costs, release less movies and space them out better

Everyone knows what Disney needs to do to turn the box office around except Disney. They are just covering their ears

 

[Disstevefan1]

I agree, but a guy who's only concern is making himself money isn't exactly the guy I'd be jumping up and down with excitement to use as the replacement.

Is it true that Peltz only concern is to make money, or will Peltz fix the company, so the brand is restored, so the stock goes up and he makes money?

I admit I have not done research to see what Peltz has done with other companies so I sincerely do not know.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

And Disney has put themselves in a position to be "raided" strictly through their own actions.

Okay, yes, completely agree. But that doesn't mean that being raided by Peltz is the best route of action, in my opinion.

 

[Dranth]

You can also drive revenue with increased attendance. The problem is they have failed to build out the parks and surrounding infrastructure in a way that can handle more guests satisfactorily.

That is a complete lack of vision and strategic failure that falls squarely on Bob Iger.

They have pushed every other lever to far that it’s starting to push back.

The level of investment needed to correct this is astronomical and we still have a black hole called D+ consuming capitol.

Something drastic needs to change and Bob Iger is not going to be the one to make it happen.

I agree with a lot of this but again, Peltz is talking ROI only. So, increases from revenue must outpace the increased expenses from investment to produce the positive return he is looking for. Otherwise, he is saying he is going to fight it. Well, you aren't going to get that by increasing food quality for example. Even if you could convince someone like him that over time it would be a net benefit, you still need to answer why that money shouldn't be spent elsewhere as there are more obvious, quicker, and higher returns like another E-Ticket they can collect ILL money on for example.

If Peltz was a customer first guy who approached things in a way where delayed monetary results were worth the loss of revenue in the short to medium term to rebuild customer loyalty, expand the base, reassert quality, etc. I would be all for it. He isn't. He is a spend what you must to get the most return and nothing more. That eliminates that chance that he helps to address almost any of the problems we all see currently.

Even his complaints make no sense. He basically keeps saying they should do things they are already doing. Take D+ for example, I know many don’t like it but it is almost in the black. His solution to get there? Do what they already did months ago but instead of waiting to see the results and evaluate the impact he just screams they should do the thing they already did but more. It is that impatience and focus on nothing but immediate results we need to get away from.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You're right. Everyone knows that the one thing about human nature is that nobody ever changes their positions based on the evidence presented. What was viewed as necessary over a decade ago is always going to be identical to what is necessary today.

What evidence is there that Rasulo has changed his view of theme parks? The dude didn’t like them. Not just as a business, but personally. He would show up to events at the last minute possible and then leave as soon as he could. He didn’t want Disney investing in them. He was a key believer in the view that parks were a mature, dead end business. He spent decades at Disney but we should assume he is now completely different because of what?

 

[Ayla]

I admit I have not done research to see what Peltz has done with other companies so I sincerely do not know.

You should do some. Then you can educate yourself.

 

[Brian]

What evidence is there that Rasulo has changed his view of theme parks? The dude didn’t like them. Not just as a business, but personally. He would show up to events at the last minute possible and then leave as soon as he could. He didn’t want Disney investing in them. He was a key believer in the view that parks were a mature, dead end business. He spent decades at Disney but we should assume he is now completely different because of what?

That may be, but as a member of the board, he would have a fiduciary responsibility to make the best decisions for the interests of the shareholders. Considering that the parks are carrying virtually the entire rest of the company, he would at minimum have to maintain them well.

If he is in alignment with Peltz, which I assume he is if Peltz is supporting him as part of his campaign, he sees the value and necessity of investing in the parks to keep pace with competition.

 

[mickEblu]

Let’s get another voice in there instead of just Iger YES men. I’m voting Peltz. Disneyland Magic Key holders get a vote right?

 

[Ricky Spanish]

Vote for……Ricky Spanish!

 

[monothingie]

Okay, yes, completely agree. But that doesn't mean that being raided by Peltz is the best route of action, in my opinion.

I agree, but the fact that the Disney is in this position after such a rapid collapse is quite remarkable.

I don't think anyone disagrees that change is needed. The major problem is and has always been that TWDC seems incapable of looking outside of themselves for different leadership.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That may be, but as a member of the board, he would have a fiduciary responsibility to make the best decisions for the interests of the shareholders. Considering that the parks are carrying virtually the entire rest of the company, he would at minimum have to maintain them well.

If he is in alignment with Peltz, which I assume he is if Peltz is supporting him as part of his campaign, he sees the value and necessity of investing in the parks to keep pace with competition.

There is no standard between maintenance and fiduciary duty. So no, the idea that he would have to maintain the parks as they are or better is just silly. Plenty of companies slash costs as part of their fiduciary duty.