The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Fine, I have no love for Nelson and Jay. But that certainly doesn't excuse or justify Bob Iger's performance. His hands certainly aren't clean in the mess that exists right now.
-
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
Fine, I have no love for Nelson and Jay. But that certainly doesn't excuse or justify Bob Iger's performance. His hands certainly aren't clean in the mess that exists right now.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
D+ doesn’t need to achieve the same numbers as Netflix, it needs to be profitable, which it likely will be this year. I really don’t want to have Disney emulate Netflix, which churns out the most banal, uninspired content imaginable (yes, more so than Disney - it’s pretty much the only streaming service I don’t pay for).
I am very excited for EU, but it remains to be seen how much it cuts into WDW’s attendance. I find it just as likely that, as with other Uni additions, it raises Orlando tourism as a whole and benefits Disney. It certainly won’t lead to Uni’s superiority over Disney. Uni has been a better value than Disney for well over a decade. I desperately want WDW to build, but from a business perspective, I understand not reacting aggressively, especially given the Florida political environment for the next several years. In any case, Iger, whose legacy is inextricably tied to the Disney brand, is more likely to build then a dividend-driven outsider.
And let’s not pretend Uni is exempt from the forces plaguing Disney. EU looks fantastic but it’s underbuilt. Ticket prices have been skyrocketing. Spending on the existing parks has been slashed. The latest additions, Minions Blast and Dreamworks Land, are value-engineered disappointments. The grass is greener at Uni but the manure is the same.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
So instead of rubber stamping Iger’s all-too-rare efforts to build in the parks, there will now be vociferous opposition. How is that good?
Oh, and how will Peltz improve the studios? One poster has offered their view — anyone else? Do Peltz boosters agree with blu?
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Honest question. Why do you think Peltz wants the seats if you really think there is nothing that can be done with them? You don't see a way forward to expand control once you have a foot in the door?
There is a reason this is a common tactic and it isn't people who made a ton of money throwing it away for kicks.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
This mentality is fine if you want to destroy your enemy. If you want your “enemy” to improve, not so much.
I think there is a lot of assumption in that statement. Based on what's been presented by Peltz, there is a valid concern that Disney is falling behind its competition and wants to respond. Common sense says you don't "cut" your way out of that type of situation.
It's becoming disturbingly clear that current management has no plan or ability to address it or compete. Peltz could be blowing smoke or maybe not. IDK do you?
It's seems like though that is the level of discourse you see with people for/against Peltz. I make no bones about my dislike of Bob Iger's management, decisions he's overseen at TWDC. I am all for wholesale change at the top.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
Peltz and Rasulo dissidence against Iger would be "you're not doing nearly enough to gut the parks and make the guest experience worse". The solution to curing a patient with cancer should not be to give them a concentration of even more cancer.
Even if you actually somehow think a couple of board members wouldn't matter, no one should be advocating giving Peltz and Rasulo any position regardless. With or without any substantial power, there is absolutely no good reason to let them anywhere near the company.
The only reason anyone here has any fondness for Peltz or his cronies is because he's said things that align with their obsession with wokeness. News flash- he doesn't give a mouse's behind about any of this crap. He's looking to do the same thing he's done to every other company he was allowed a foothold inside- gut it and run off with the money. If you think Iger already does that (which he does), then Peltz/Rasulo multiplies that problem by a thousand.
And to anyone who thinks that things can't get any worse, things can ALWAYS get so much worse. To all of the people who (rightly) gripe about the mess that is Genie, Rasulo was one of the primary "brains" behind that.
Even if you actually somehow think a couple of board members wouldn't matter, no one should be advocating giving Peltz and Rasulo any position regardless. With or without any substantial power, there is absolutely no good reason to let them anywhere near the company.
The only reason anyone here has any fondness for Peltz or his cronies is because he's said things that align with their obsession with wokeness. News flash- he doesn't give a mouse's behind about any of this crap. He's looking to do the same thing he's done to every other company he was allowed a foothold inside- gut it and run off with the money. If you think Iger already does that (which he does), then Peltz/Rasulo multiplies that problem by a thousand.
And to anyone who thinks that things can't get any worse, things can ALWAYS get so much worse. To all of the people who (rightly) gripe about the mess that is Genie, Rasulo was one of the primary "brains" behind that.
Bob Iger sucks, advocating giving Peltz and Rasulo a foothold in the company is an objectively horrible strategy if you want things to get better.
Last edited:
Brian
Well-Known Member
Two terrible options with two terrible outcomes. Fast Decline versus Faster Decline. You pick your players.
Maybe it would be good thing to get to rock bottom faster.
It's a tragedy that this is best that TWDC can do.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
What if Universal offers then more $$$ for the royalties?
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
As a very recent shareholder, I can’t see myself voting for Peltz. I get a bad vibe off of him. I’m not championing Disney's choices either but I worry what Peltz is after.
I don’t believe any of his points. I know he can’t but I think he would happily sell off parts of the company to make a quick buck if he could.
I don’t believe any of his points. I know he can’t but I think he would happily sell off parts of the company to make a quick buck if he could.
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
While selling off divisions may or may not be Peltz's end game, he's on record that the company is just too big and too diversified to be contained under one individual silo and that multiple, separate public companies should be established (which I assume would be overseen by a global Disney silo and board).
Makes sense. Worked for Meta and Alphabet and even Musk. Would that then expose the non-performing bleeders that would become prospects for M&A? Perhaps.
But it could be good for Parks. Peltz likes the parks. The parks are substantial revenue, capital intensive, asset rich and basking in customer loyalty. Based on sheer size alone, they are much more valuable to the current owners than to any possibly interested buyer.
I think Disney Parks Inc. could unleash tremendous potential for expansion.
Makes sense. Worked for Meta and Alphabet and even Musk. Would that then expose the non-performing bleeders that would become prospects for M&A? Perhaps.
But it could be good for Parks. Peltz likes the parks. The parks are substantial revenue, capital intensive, asset rich and basking in customer loyalty. Based on sheer size alone, they are much more valuable to the current owners than to any possibly interested buyer.
I think Disney Parks Inc. could unleash tremendous potential for expansion.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
As a long time Magic Key holder who currently gets 20% off parking, 15% discounts on food and 10% discounts on merch he has my vote.
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
He likes them till it doesn’t suit his goals anymore.
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
Why?
PirateFrank
Well-Known Member
As opposed to the current regime?
Indy_UK
Well-Known Member
Because as a shareholder he wants to pressure Disney to change course and increase value to shareholders?
He’s not doing it to become CEO or anything and like I said earlier, he’s using Rusalo as a way to strengthen his false persona that he actually cares about the parks which he probably doesn’t (then again, neither does Iger) and Rusalo goes along with it because he thinks it’s him sticking it to Iger.
The 2 board seats won’t make a world of difference but will at least maybe be a thorn in Igers side to find a proper successor or actually listen to views (not have to carry them out) that goes against what strokes his Ego
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
He has a trustworthy face.
I seem to remember a lot of high level speculation about Iger doing just that.
Again, same ice cream just different flavors.