What to Watch Going Into the Earnings Report

[CircusPeanuts]

Without divulging how I get some of my info, I'll just say that you can learn a lot about potential re-openings through the supply chain orders. If you're not purchasing certain things, you have no immediate plans to reopen.

So the *very* specific (and incorrect) info you posted about WDW opening, mask details including name dropping a random WDW exec, amount of attendance of MK at reopening, etc - that was all surmised by you due to a lack of purchasing orders?

OK.

 

[WDW Pro]

So the *very* specific (and incorrect) info you posted about WDW opening, mask details including name dropping a random WDW exec, amount of attendance of MK at reopening, etc - that was all surmised by you due to a lack of purchasing orders?

OK.

No, and it wasn't incorrect. By your logic, I knew about bird poop accumulating on pathways due to purchase orders. C'mon, you're smarter than that. Clearly, any sane person could figure out I'm referring to Disneyland not prepping for reopen anytime soon.

 

[happybear025]

If they wait until August to reopen the parks, I will start a class action lawsuit with any fellow shareholders willing to join me. They have a fiduciary responsibility to reopen as soon as it is safe and possible. I understand a month or two closure. But no DL for the rest of the year? Ridiculous!

I honestly can’t tell if you are joking or serious?

If you’re worried about your shares, perhaps now is the time to buy some puts. Or calls for 2022

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I honestly can’t tell if you are joking or serious?

If you’re worried about your shares, perhaps now is the time to buy some puts. Or calls for 2022

Sadly...it’s serious.

“Seriously entitled”

 

[peter11435]

I honestly can’t tell if you are joking or serious?

If you’re worried about your shares, perhaps now is the time to buy some puts. Or calls for 2022

I think the key word missing from his message is IF.

IF it is safe and possible to reopen the parks before August then they do have a responsibility to their shareholders and investors to open. But at this point we don’t know IF it will be safe and possible before then or not.

 

[NoBreyner60]

I've heard on vlogs and whatnot that Galaxy's Edge was opened without Rise to show better results for shareholders. Toy Story Land was suggested to have been built using cheaper materials. If I were to believe it; Toy Story land does have peeling paint and wallpaper issues at minimum within about two years of opening. If appeasing shareholders is their goal they'd open as soon as they could. Disney Springs is rumored to open soon.

 

[WDW Pro]

I think the key word missing from his message is IF.

IF it is safe and possible to reopen the parks before August then they do have a responsibility to their shareholders and investors to open. But at this point we don’t know IF it will be safe and possible before then or not.

Not to mention that "safe" is a subjective term.

 

[peter11435]

No, and it wasn't incorrect. By your logic, I knew about bird poop accumulating on pathways due to purchase orders. C'mon, you're smarter than that. Clearly, any sane person could figure out I'm referring to Disneyland not prepping for reopen anytime soon.

To be fair bird poop accumulates on path ways pretty heavily even when the parks are open. It happens quickly without daily washing. Check out the area beside the Columbia Harbor house someday when the park reopens.

It doesn’t make sense for them to be power washing the park nightly right now. But that bird poop can be quickly and easily removed with a day of power washing. Something that happens nightly when the parks are open.

I’m not saying they are prepping to open Disneyland anytime soon. But accumulating bird poop is not an indication.

 

[No Name]

The fact that they think even a Mulan film is too risky shows how reserved this supposedly creative company has become.

Can you imagine them making a movie like, I don’t know, The Color of Friendship these days? They are so weak.

 

[NoBreyner60]

I wonder if the level of bird poop has dropped since birds tend to be where food is easy to get. The park has been closed for several weeks and the birds may have moved on.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I wonder if the level of bird poop has dropped since birds tend to be where food is easy to get. The park has been closed for several weeks and the birds may have moved on.

In their search for food, yes. But not if they nest near one of the parks.

 

[WDW Pro]

In their search for food, yes. But not if they nest near one of the parks.

Ducks are the big problem.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Ducks are the big problem.

I'm not surprised. My boys love watching the ducks at HS.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm not surprised. My boys love watching the ducks at HS.

Disney ducks are the best ducks on earth

 

[brb1006]

Disney ducks are the best ducks on earth

He's not wrong.

 

[DisneyJoe]

I don't know that Disney is really interested in opening the park without the resorts. Who is going to go? Florida residents with annual passes. Well those people are not bringing in much new money. Sure, a few snacks and quick service meals maybe. Maybe people that were going to stay at Disney could rent a hotel room outside of Disney instead, to go to the parks. I'm sure Disney really wants that to happen.

Resorts are where the money is at. The parks are only there to fill hotel rooms. Guest in hotel rooms buy tickets, expensive tickets, they eat at restaurants and buy alcoholic drinks. Those MK resorts bring in $500+ per night on top of everything else. When this whole thing started, they closed the parks and left the resorts and Disney Springs open. I think their knee jerk reaction was to leave the resorts open indefinitely.

The last set of cancellation emails to guests was for those having reservations at WDW resorts thru May 23. They seem to go week by week. When they are cancelled, they are offered a promotion to rebook between June 1 and Sept 30. Unless something is announced today, I'd watch social media for these type of announcements of reservation cancellations to see who they are keeping out of the resorts.

 

[Brad Bishop]

If they re-open when they know internally that it's unsafe.... and a couple super spreaders infect hundreds of people... and you get a bunch of deaths related to Disney World, then Disney will be bankrupted by both lawsuits and a PR nightmare.
So yes, they have a fiduciary responsibility -- and that responsibility absolutely requires caution.
Let's remember -- if they open soon, it will be at partial capacity, with lots of required modifications -- It might not even be profitable to run the parks that way.

So the best thing to do from a fiduciary standpoint, is to wait.

I've actually wondered about this since the start.

Before, if you got the flu at WDW (or any number of other places)... OK... You got the flu. If you died then, yeah, that sucks, but that's life.

With WDW (and, again, others) specifically keeping closed to avoid spreading COVID-19, it's like they're taking responsibility for your safety in doing this and you could argue that if you got sick that it'd be their fault because they didn't make it safe enough.

Now you can argue, "Who'd ever do that???" I wouldn't. Perhaps you wouldn't either. Still, just in their actions I could see someone inferring, "Well, they closed when it was unsafe so that means that anytime it's open that it's safe and I got sick there and they owe me medical expenses and lost work!!"

You can see this with other items where things that lasted for decades were suddenly changed to make it "more safe". The trams getting doors.. People rode the trams for decades and could all handle themselves without falling out. The trams get doors and now if a door fails, well, suddenly Disney is putting everyone at risk!

I don't know what'll come of it, if anything, but it has been a thought in my head. I'm just saying that with these types of actions you have a perceived shift in responsibility.

 

[brb1006]

The Earnings Report is about to begin.

https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/d4rpfi28

 

[havoc315]

I've actually wondered about this since the start.

Before, if you got the flu at WDW (or any number of other places)... OK... You got the flu. If you died then, yeah, that sucks, but that's life.

With WDW (and, again, others) specifically keeping closed to avoid spreading COVID-19, it's like they're taking responsibility for your safety in doing this and you could argue that if you got sick that it'd be their fault because they didn't make it safe enough.

Now you can argue, "Who'd ever do that???" I wouldn't. Perhaps you wouldn't either. Still, just in their actions I could see someone inferring, "Well, they closed when it was unsafe so that means that anytime it's open that it's safe and I got sick there and they owe me medical expenses and lost work!!"

You can see this with other items where things that lasted for decades were suddenly changed to make it "more safe". The trams getting doors.. People rode the trams for decades and could all handle themselves without falling out. The trams get doors and now if a door fails, well, suddenly Disney is putting everyone at risk!

I don't know what'll come of it, if anything, but it has been a thought in my head. I'm just saying that with these types of actions you have a perceived shift in responsibility.

"Negligence" becomes a community standard definition. You have to be as cautious as the "reasonable person" or "reasonable company."
If nobody else is taking regular-flu precautions, then you can't be liable for failing to take regular-flu precautions.

On the other hand, lots of theme parks and similar activities have closed for Coronavirus. Disneyland likely won't be open for a long time.

Let me take you through how it would play out at trial...

Lawyer: "You have Disney World open, but Disney land was closed... why did you have Disney Land closed for WDW open?"

Chapek: "Well, it was a regulatory issue.. California wouldn't let us open Disneyland, but Florida let us open WDW.."

Lawyer: "California wouldn't allow Disneyland to open, because they deemed it a public health danger, correct?"

Chapek: "Well.. I don't know.. but yes, that's what California said....."

Lawyer: "And you employ lots of specialists yourself, you employ public health experts?"

Chapek: "Well... yes we do...."

Lawyer: "And, we obtained your internal documents in discovery.... your own experts told you that there was significant risk of viral spread at WDW, just like Disneyland?"

Chapek: "well yes.... but we thought the risk was reasonable..."

Lawyer: "so, though your own experts said it was an unnecessary health risk.. with many theme parks remaining closed due to those health risks, you deemed your profits to be more important?"

...................... How do you think that will play to a jury?

It means they won't open until they are pretty confident the risk is truly low.

 

[monothingie]

"Negligence" becomes a community standard definition. You have to be as cautious as the "reasonable person" or "reasonable company."
If nobody else is taking regular-flu precautions, then you can't be liable for failing to take regular-flu precautions.

On the other hand, lots of theme parks and similar activities have closed for Coronavirus. Disneyland likely won't be open for a long time.

Let me take you through how it would play out at trial...

Lawyer: "You have Disney World open, but Disney land was closed... why did you have Disney Land closed for WDW open?"

Chapek: "Well, it was a regulatory issue.. California wouldn't let us open Disneyland, but Florida let us open WDW.."

Lawyer: "California wouldn't allow Disneyland to open, because they deemed it a public health danger, correct?"

Chapek: "Well.. I don't know.. but yes, that's what California said....."

Lawyer: "And you employ lots of specialists yourself, you employ public health experts?"

Chapek: "Well... yes we do...."

Lawyer: "And, we obtained your internal documents in discovery.... your own experts told you that there was significant risk of viral spread at WDW, just like Disneyland?"

Chapek: "well yes.... but we thought the risk was reasonable..."

Lawyer: "so, though your own experts said it was an unnecessary health risk.. with many theme parks remaining closed due to those health risks, you deemed your profits to be more important?"

...................... How do you think that will play to a jury?

It means they won't open until they are pretty confident the risk is truly low.

You can't try a Florida case using California regs.

When reading this I just keep coming back to the California prop 65 warnings that have become so common place on so many consumer products today.

If all this stuff is known by the state of California to cause cancer, how can a corporation sell them and not be at all negligent or liable for doing so, even though California has told us that it is dangerous. Except that's what the warning label is for. It's the same reason why Disney warns people with medical conditions not to ride certain attractions.

If Disney provides adequate and reasonable warning about potential health dangers to all guests and have operations that comply with best practices and local regulation, it becomes extremely difficult to prevail in a suit. That being said, it's very easy for anyone to file a lawsuit, which probably is the most problematic part (PR wise anyway).