Walt Disney board extends Iger's contract as Chairman and CEO through June 2018

[Darth Sidious]

Yikes neo, you sound like Eisner somehow murdered your dog or something.
Whats with the insane hate towards him?

See below:

Eisner once sued my father, then wrote him a HUGE check to settle, tried to blackball him, and offered him a BIG deal to handle marketing for WDW. In that order.

He was a jerk with an ego that could match Trump... You know, if Trump had class and actual real intelligence... but face to face, was a very charming man... Unless he was in a mood. I would still take him over Iger any day of the week. But he needs a Wells. Michael was way more petty and childish than what I hear about Iger, and Michael could make horrible decisions, going back to his Studio days, based on that pettiness. And I know for a fact he was involved in very VERY shady things to get information and screw people over.

But when it comes to WDW, he knew that it was the crowning jewel of the Parks.

 

[SoccerMickey]

Those "garbage" hotels were very smart and have a way better occupancy than the GF. They're money makers and are great deals for the average family. Trying to label these people as lower class, or "honey boo boo" crowd is really tacky. These are the resorts our middle class families can afford at Disney. And it had nothing to do with losing the "sophistication." That's laughable. Only EPCOT had that air, and that was lost when it became clear how much WDI hated the place, because they didn't "get it." That it was ancient from old Imagineers who were dinosaurs. You pointed to it yourself, Imagination. That came from old Fitzy. M:S is a good idea in concept, but in reality... not so mu

Those "garbage" hotels were very smart and have a way better occupancy than the GF. They're money makers and are great deals for the average family. Trying to label these people as lower class, or "honey boo boo" crowd is really tacky. These are the resorts our middle class families can afford at Disney.
.

I have felt for a long time that the All-Stars and Pop has done a lot to hurt Walt Disney World more than help and we're starting to see their long term affects now. (Or is it effects?)
On the plus side they make a WDW vacation more affordable and that's a big plus but sadly a short-sighted plus. when they were added in the 1990's they automatically changed what the brand image for Walt Disney World is. Before if you wanted to stay on Disney property you could do a moderate, a (new) vacation ownership, campground, villa, or one of the deluxe originals. With the exception of camping in a tent you were in pretty nice accommodations and the Disney vacation was, if you wanted the full Disney experience, something you worked for. Now there was a choice to spend less money, get less amenities, and still be on Disney property the people came, in droves. And they'd still be here if we didn't place tubs of punch on the front lawn It expanded the entire resorts capacity but sadly they weren't willing to increase park capacity to soak up all the bodies staying in their rooms now and where it makes the Disney vacation more affordable it no longer gives Disney the incentive to keep plussing itself and adding because they know the people will come. Also as the economy rises Disney knows prices will rise too and while keeping the Values a Value it raises the prices of the Deluxes to insane prices.
And one of the worst things it did was really hurt the Central Florida economy. These resorts went directly after the mom and Pop run hotels, motels, and motor lodges, and to some extent restaurants that could not compete with Disney saying for just a few bucks more you can get the same experience you're used to at this place 5 miles away and be on Disney property. Disney did not need to take that business away. They were still the main reason most of these people were coming to town and they were still getting the majority of these people's money.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Those "garbage" hotels were very smart and have a way better occupancy than the GF. They're money makers and are great deals for the average family. Trying to label these people as lower class, or "honey boo boo" crowd is really tacky. These are the resorts our middle class families can afford at Disney. And it had nothing to do with losing the "sophistication."

Spot on, it's extremely tacky on the part of Captain Neo to talk such snobbish nonsense.

If Staggs and Rasulo are the alternatives then can't say I'm too bothered about Iger staying on another couple of years. The company needs a clean break in leadership in my view, in an ideal world Iger would go in 2016 and take his two chief stooges with him. Hopefully that will still happen in 2018, I think Rasulo especially would be a disaster for WDW.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Bob could learn a lesson or two from this.

 

[Thomas morrow]

It seems the CEO has stayed in power long after his term expired.
Didn't the stock holders demand he stay.
uh oh

 

[Cesar R M]

See below:

so, are you Neo's secondary account or what?

 

[AEfx]

In general, I think it's great and shows a lot of confidence in the next couple of years in terms of the studio itself.

I know that those who only look at what he does for the parks will violently disagree, and I too wish that we got someone who was more park-oriented - but it's undeniable that Iger has pretty much ensured the profitability and has Disney being taken seriously again in Live Action films. It's very likely that Disney will have the #1 movie of the year in each of the next two years with Avengers 2 and Star Wars, just as they did this year. And the deals he has made are going to continue making money for decades to come.

 

[misterID]

@SoccerMickey WDW was once affordable for all families. Even the contemporary wasn't all that expensive. People have been under the delusion that WDW has always been a premium experience and the economic resorts destroyed this sophisticated Mecca that kept out all the little people and that is far, far from the truth. Eisner actually started creating a premium experience with price increases and building deluxe resorts like GFL, etc.

There was a bigger working class crowd at the parks before Eisner came in. The affordable resorts were a very smart investment. Instead of losing out on the crowds that would otherwise stay off site at a Howard Johnson and the like all around Orlando, which they were, they wanted that big market. I've said it before, even to Eddie Sotto who wanted the parks to be a premium experience, Disney can't make it on those crowds alone. There's a reason they have big problems filling the deluxe resorts but no problem with the economic resorts, and resorts like Port Orleans. I would even say AS and POP helped save the resort's butts and helps those TDO numbers.

They didn't build or expand the parks because they were lazy and greedy with a corporate mentality that resembles a parasite, instead of ambition and creativity.

I still stay off site in a pad five minutes from WDW that makes a GFL villa look like an econo lodge from 1976 for half the price.

 

[Cesar R M]

In general, I think it's great and shows a lot of confidence in the next couple of years in terms of the studio itself.

I know that those who only look at what he does for the parks will violently disagree, and I too wish that we got someone who was more park-oriented - but it's undeniable that Iger has pretty much ensured the profitability and has Disney being taken seriously again in Live Action films. It's very likely that Disney will have the #1 movie of the year in each of the next two years with Avengers 2 and Star Wars, just as they did this year. And the deals he has made are going to continue making money for decades to come.

Yeah, but you cant deny that Iger HAD TO BUY 2 franchises to finally kick up the live action movie segment of Disney.

 

[SirLink]

Yeah, but you cant deny that Iger HAD TO BUY 2 franchises to finally kick up the live action movie segment of Disney.

To add to this Marvel Studios films get made in their imprint to avoid the Disney name being on those films and if one was to guess the same will happen for Star Wars and any new Indy film they will come out under LucasFilm imprint to avoid the Disney name on those projects. Hmmm wonder why?

 

[John]

On this thread, we've discussed Disney's stock buybacks, market cap, gross margin, and revenue. I guess it's time to add operating income to the discussion.

Assuming growth during the first 9 months continues into the last quarter, operating income should be over $13B, up an impressive $7B since Iger's first year.

Of course, market cap is up over $100B, perhaps a bit of an overreaction.

Not that the market has ever been known to overreact.

In the first 9 months of the current fiscal year, Disney has spent $5.1B repurchasing its own stock, with announced plans to repurchase a total of $6B to $8B for the year.

To answer your implied question, "where [is] all the money going?", I think we know exactly where all that extra money being generated under Iger is going.

PO4 since you are the numbers guy could you explain to us exactly what the "Buy Backs" of stock does for the company. Details Please!.....lol Just for us that are not as affluent in such things.

 

[ParentsOf4]

PO4 since you are the numbers guy could you explain to us exactly what the "Buy Backs" of stock does for the company. Details Please!.....lol Just for us that are not as affluent in such things.

It would take an entire book to provide details.

Wiki has a pretty good explanation.

I'll try to explain this using a lot of generalizations in order to keep this simple. For those with a more sophisticated understanding of the market, please take this explanation for what it is; an entry-level introduction.

A stock repurchase (or “buyback”) is a way for a company to quickly increase the price of its stock.

When a company repurchases (or buys back) stock, these shares of stock typically are retired and are no longer are available for trade. Effectively, these shares no longer exist. With fewer shares available, the price of the remaining shares increases.

Buying back stock is a way to reward existing shareholders since it increases the price of the shares they already own.

However, stock buybacks do nothing to improve the long-term health of a company. They do not increase revenue or profits.

Consider a large project like Epcot. In 1979-1982, corporate Disney could have spent over a billion dollars buying back stock (which might have made shareholders at that time very happy) or invest in Epcot.

Wall Street roundly criticized the Epcot project back then but, 30 years later, corporate Disney and its shareholders are much better off financially because of Epcot. In the long-term, Disney is a stronger company because of Epcot.

It’s important to remember that senior executive compensation is tied directly to stock price. Executives sometimes are accused of repurchasing stock not because it’s best for the long-term health of the company or its shareholders, but because it’s in the best interest of executives.

Fund managers at institutional investment firms are in the same boat as Disney executives. They are not worried about how Disney will be doing 10 years from now. Their compensation (and even their jobs) are tied directly to how well Disney is doing today.

Long-term, WDW (and corporate Disney) almost certainly would be better off with a 5th Gate but there is no one who is part of the current decision-making process who would benefit financially. Rather than invest billions in a 5th Gate, today’s shareholders and Disney executives would rather see that money spent on stock buybacks.

CEO Michael Eisner built in part because of ego (he felt these projects were his Disney legacy) and in part because Disney’s largest shareholders at the time understood that real estate development takes time.

Today’s corporate Disney is owned by large investment firms that, for the most part, don’t have the patience for long-term investing.

 

[Darth Sidious]

so, are you Neo's secondary account or what?

What sort of logic is that? You asked for what happened and he had it a few posts above so I quoted it. I don't share his opinions.

 

[Cesar R M]

What sort of logic is that? You asked for what happened and he had it a few posts above so I quoted it. I don't share his opinions.

It just seemed like you were promoting his posts, sorry.

 

[AEfx]

Yeah, but you cant deny that Iger HAD TO BUY 2 franchises to finally kick up the live action movie segment of Disney.

There is nothing to deny - it's a fact. Though I think when folks talk about it they conveniently leave out the third, Pixar - because they know that doesn't help the case for the whining about "outside" properties, even though technically, it was.

These purchases were brilliant on so many levels. They also fit perfectly into the Disney family, contrary to what some folks like to rant about. It's really pedantic that folks dismiss them simply because they did not originate with a Disney employee - like somehow anyone who works for Disney in 2014 has some magical property (no pun intended) that somehow has that if their paycheck says "Disney" on it, what they create is inherently "Disney" - when in this day and age, that's a naive notion at best.

These properties and Disney were just really smart moves because Disney is the only company out there that already has the infrastructure to support them like no other could. For just one example, just look at what Disney has done with toy distribution with Marvel and Star Wars - anyone been to a Toys R Us in the past few weeks? The Star Wars section of most stores was down to about 5-6 feet of shelf space, a bit more for Marvel (only because it includes so many properties in and of itself). Now, you will find a full double aisle (up and down both sides, with several large displays in the center) all of Marvel/Star Wars product at the front of every TRU out there in the prime real estate next to the electronics/video games section.

That kind of stuff wasn't happening before, but because Disney already has relationships with companies like TRU, they are able to take it to a whole new level.

It's popular to dismiss them on certain fan sites, but the truth is - these purchases ensured the long-term profitability of the Disney company. They are no more or less Disney than any other adapted Disney property in reality, it's just that lots of those folks who deny that don't really live in reality.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

There is nothing to deny - it's a fact. Though I think when folks talk about it they conveniently leave out the third, Pixar - because they know that doesn't help the case for the whining about "outside" properties, even though technically, it was.

These purchases were brilliant on so many levels. They also fit perfectly into the Disney family, contrary to what some folks like to rant about. It's really pedantic that folks dismiss them simply because they did not originate with a Disney employee - like somehow anyone who works for Disney in 2014 has some magical property (no pun intended) that somehow has that if their paycheck says "Disney" on it, what they create is inherently "Disney" - when in this day and age, that's a naive notion at best.

These properties and Disney were just really smart moves because Disney is the only company out there that already has the infrastructure to support them like no other could. For just one example, just look at what Disney has done with toy distribution with Marvel and Star Wars - anyone been to a Toys R Us in the past few weeks? The Star Wars section of most stores was down to about 5-6 feet of shelf space, a bit more for Marvel (only because it includes so many properties in and of itself). Now, you will find a full double aisle (up and down both sides, with several large displays in the center) all of Marvel/Star Wars product at the front of every TRU out there in the prime real estate next to the electronics/video games section.

That kind of stuff wasn't happening before, but because Disney already has relationships with companies like TRU, they are able to take it to a whole new level.

It's popular to dismiss them on certain fan sites, but the truth is - these purchases ensured the long-term profitability of the Disney company. They are no more or less Disney than any other adapted Disney property in reality, it's just that lots of those folks who deny that don't really live in reality.

When Iger bought PIXAR, they were very close to signing a distribution deal with Universal. Iger getting PIXAR back is one of the best things he has done.

 

[BigTxEars]

There is nothing to deny - it's a fact. Though I think when folks talk about it they conveniently leave out the third, Pixar - because they know that doesn't help the case for the whining about "outside" properties, even though technically, it was.

These purchases were brilliant on so many levels. They also fit perfectly into the Disney family, contrary to what some folks like to rant about. It's really pedantic that folks dismiss them simply because they did not originate with a Disney employee - like somehow anyone who works for Disney in 2014 has some magical property (no pun intended) that somehow has that if their paycheck says "Disney" on it, what they create is inherently "Disney" - when in this day and age, that's a naive notion at best.

These properties and Disney were just really smart moves because Disney is the only company out there that already has the infrastructure to support them like no other could. For just one example, just look at what Disney has done with toy distribution with Marvel and Star Wars - anyone been to a Toys R Us in the past few weeks? The Star Wars section of most stores was down to about 5-6 feet of shelf space, a bit more for Marvel (only because it includes so many properties in and of itself). Now, you will find a full double aisle (up and down both sides, with several large displays in the center) all of Marvel/Star Wars product at the front of every TRU out there in the prime real estate next to the electronics/video games section.

That kind of stuff wasn't happening before, but because Disney already has relationships with companies like TRU, they are able to take it to a whole new level.

It's popular to dismiss them on certain fan sites, but the truth is - these purchases ensured the long-term profitability of the Disney company. They are no more or less Disney than any other adapted Disney property in reality, it's just that lots of those folks who deny that don't really live in reality.

Well put. You can not blame the guy for the "bad" and say he "had" to do what turned out good. He gets the credit and the blame as CEO.

 

[AEfx]

Well put. You can not blame the guy for the "bad" and say he "had" to do what turned out good. He gets the credit and the blame as CEO.

And as much as the firing squad would have me for saying this (or any of this), from an objective point of view - his time has been focused on the weakest link - Disney Live Action films. As a parks fan, I wish it weren't so - but the parks are profitable, and remain profitable. So they are not his priority - as much as it pains me to admit this.

So while I hope the parks get more attention, and I feel they really deserve it - there is a reason that he is a Wall Street darling - because he focused his attention on the weakest parts of the company and has bolstered them quite a bit. He's not the head of Parks and Resorts, he's the head of the Walt Disney Company, and the WDC is in overall much better shape than it was. It's really sad that the parks have taken a backseat while the rest of the company was shored up - I can only hope that with the major acquisitions out of the way, the next few years will be better for our specific interests.

But I know that to most folks who post here, they dismiss all that he has done and only focus on the parks - which as parks fans is understandable, but they make him out to be some destroyer of the apocalypse, when in fact - weren't we just discussing a few years back the possibility of certain sections of the company being sold off? You certainly don't hear that stuff now, because overall the WDC is on a tremendous trajectory - though like everyone, I think attention needs to be paid to the parks ASAP as a fan, that doesn't change the fact that overall, Iger has been incredible for the company as a whole.

 

[BigTxEars]

And as much as the firing squad would have me for saying this (or any of this), from an objective point of view - his time has been focused on the weakest link - Disney Live Action films. As a parks fan, I wish it weren't so - but the parks are profitable, and remain profitable. So they are not his priority - as much as it pains me to admit this.

So while I hope the parks get more attention, and I feel they really deserve it - there is a reason that he is a Wall Street darling - because he focused his attention on the weakest parts of the company and has bolstered them quite a bit. He's not the head of Parks and Resorts, he's the head of the Walt Disney Company, and the WDC is in overall much better shape than it was. It's really sad that the parks have taken a backseat while the rest of the company was shored up - I can only hope that with the major acquisitions out of the way, the next few years will be better for our specific interests.

But I know that to most folks who post here, they dismiss all that he has done and only focus on the parks - which as parks fans is understandable, but they make him out to be some destroyer of the apocalypse, when in fact - weren't we just discussing a few years back the possibility of certain sections of the company being sold off? You certainly don't hear that stuff now, because overall the WDC is on a tremendous trajectory - though like everyone, I think attention needs to be paid to the parks ASAP as a fan, that doesn't change the fact that overall, Iger has been incredible for the company as a whole.

Agree, the Marvel movies are among the hottest in Hollywood and some new well made Star Wars movies......$$$$$$ in the bank.

I see the parks getting attention and money these days. Overdue? Yes but it is flowing in now. That may very well be because of Uni and their recent upgrades as opposed to anything Iger wants but I don't care as I go to both sets of parks so I win either way as a guest.

If the man would have left Disney he would have been snatched up by someone quickly because of his proven track record.

 

[Cesar R M]

There is nothing to deny - it's a fact. Though I think when folks talk about it they conveniently leave out the third, Pixar - because they know that doesn't help the case for the whining about "outside" properties, even though technically, it was.

These purchases were brilliant on so many levels. They also fit perfectly into the Disney family, contrary to what some folks like to rant about. It's really pedantic that folks dismiss them simply because they did not originate with a Disney employee - like somehow anyone who works for Disney in 2014 has some magical property (no pun intended) that somehow has that if their paycheck says "Disney" on it, what they create is inherently "Disney" - when in this day and age, that's a naive notion at best.

These properties and Disney were just really smart moves because Disney is the only company out there that already has the infrastructure to support them like no other could. For just one example, just look at what Disney has done with toy distribution with Marvel and Star Wars - anyone been to a Toys R Us in the past few weeks? The Star Wars section of most stores was down to about 5-6 feet of shelf space, a bit more for Marvel (only because it includes so many properties in and of itself). Now, you will find a full double aisle (up and down both sides, with several large displays in the center) all of Marvel/Star Wars product at the front of every TRU out there in the prime real estate next to the electronics/video games section.

That kind of stuff wasn't happening before, but because Disney already has relationships with companies like TRU, they are able to take it to a whole new level.

It's popular to dismiss them on certain fan sites, but the truth is - these purchases ensured the long-term profitability of the Disney company. They are no more or less Disney than any other adapted Disney property in reality, it's just that lots of those folks who deny that don't really live in reality.

Well, I was talking directly about action movies, not animated.
But yes, Pixar was a much required for the revival of Disney when their animation studios need more push.