Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^^^^ Unless it's Staggs who is the one who wants to sell off the parks. .. which is why Weiss got the boot. ...which is why Staggs is being given higher up and better positions. IT ALL FITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By dshyates All I have to say is, I have not been happy with the direction of the US parks for over a decade. And I am at the point of really not caring. So I say go for it. That said, I have a hard time seeing anyone being interested dropping that kind of cash only to be at the mercy of the Disney Brand Police. AND not wanting their own Brand name slapped on everything from the parks to the parking lots. Come on down to Amway's Walt Disney World Resort.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<^^^^ Unless it's Staggs who is the one who wants to sell off the parks.>> That's what the Spirit implied at the end of his starting posts, I think, when he wrote: <<Bob didn't send Staggs to O-town to 'learn' the parks biz. Tom was sent to P&R to strip the copper wiring from Cindy's place for scrap. I've heard he's quite the salesman.>> And yes, it does fit - but the question which still remains (and which has been pointed out by a few other posters as well): who would want to buy it? How long will they keep trying to sell it? And how much more damage will be done during that time? And what will finally happen if they can't find a buyer?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>That's what the Spirit implied at the end of his starting posts, I think, when he wrote: <<Bob didn't send Staggs to O-town to 'learn' the parks biz. Tom was sent to P&R to strip the copper wiring from Cindy's place for scrap. I've heard he's quite the salesman.>><<<< Oh, of course. >>>How long will they keep trying to sell it? And how much more damage will be done during that time? And what will finally happen if they can't find a buyer?<<< The optimist in me wants it to be a huge warning sign that it means that they have to improve and built in the parks. Come on OLC...?
Originally Posted By ChiMike Spirit, I love you to death, but this is never going to happen. Perhaps Disney has drawn up a white paper on the idea, but there certainly would never be a realistic buyer for a realistic Disney seller, even on the primary equity markets. >>Then, an exec I loving like to refer to as The Weatherman stepped on the stage and declared TWDC was a distribution company<< Early on he declared the company as a content company, but I would agree with you they have been operating it in the Spirit of Eisner's last years as a pusher with massive distribution channels.
Originally Posted By dshyates Universal Orlando went through a similar spot after NBC bought them. NBC wanted to dump the parks so for 5 years the shopped the parks around. During that period they didn't add any attractions to either park. They let the maintenance slide. And their attendance numbers dropped significantly. Then they decided to keep the parks add Simpsons, Disaster!, Hollywood, Rip, Ride, Rockit, and The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. And their numbers have improved, but they still aren't back to where they were prior to trashing their own reputation. It looks like we are seeing history itself.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I can see that we are clearly heading in to a summer of big change at Disney Parks, with Al Weiss going and Staggs clearly wanting to rearrange the furniture a bit now that he's settled in to the place over the last 18 months. But what you are talking about is a massive change corporate-wide,<<< ... >>Plus, the continuing mega-investments into the parks seem to fly in the face of a company looking to divest itself of that particular division. DCA Extreme Makeover, the NextGen team out in WDW, a fourth cruise ship under construction, etc. Why pour all those Billions into this division if you are setting up to sell it off?<< Great post TP2000. It makes it even harder to find a credible buyer privately or publicly. I don't for a second think that WDP&R is nothing but gravy for WDC, but it has proven itself to be a far more stable revenue generator during bad times than any other division of the corporation. The ability to cut at WDP&R is like an addiction and it is to the guests detriment. While they have to view the parks/resorts deferred maintenance, aging attractions/hotels, and increasing operating costs as huge future issues so would any realistic buyer.
Originally Posted By leobloom Around 2004, didn't Comcast make a bid for TWDC and its parks? I think I remember hearing at the time that the bid was more of a publicity stunt than a serious offer. It wouldn't surprise me if Disney was shopping the parks -- if you look at WDW, you'll see there's virtually nothing happening other than a couple of Fantasyland dark rides that are scheduled to open over the next three years. Is there anything on the table for the other parks? Seriously looks to me like the company would like to ditch these babies. You always hear from the money people how much it costs to operate these parks and how little (in Wall Street terms) the reward is for the risk. Let's face it -- the company isn't headed by ol' try-something-new, money-be-damned Walt.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>^^^^ Unless it's Staggs who is the one who wants to sell off the parks. .. which is why Weiss got the boot. << Weiss got the boot for no other reason that he was given a cushy position to move up to under Jay, he got in the way more than helped in that new position, cost the company a lot of money in his own contract for little tangible results, and was no longer wanted with Jay gone. He would have been a pimple on a whale when it came to selling that division. I wouldn't draw any correlation with a theory of selling
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Early on he declared the company as a content company, but I would agree with you they have been operating it in the Spirit of Eisner's last years as a pusher with massive distribution channels.<<< And isn't that what caused the end of Eisner? If Iger or Staggs is flirting with the same idea, perhaps their time is up.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>It wouldn't surprise me if Disney was shopping the parks -- if you look at WDW, you'll see there's virtually nothing happening other than a couple of Fantasyland dark rides that are scheduled to open over the next three years. Is there anything on the table for the other parks? Seriously looks to me like the company would like to ditch these babies. You always hear from the money people how much it costs to operate these parks and how little (in Wall Street terms) the reward is for the risk.<< The reason for the lackluster activity is not tied with the idea of tee-ing this unit up for sale, read TP2000's post that I quoted. They are making substantial investments in the division, which would make it FAR harder to find an end-buyer. The reason for the lackluster additions in Florida, as you rightfully point out, is simply for the fact that they don't feel the need. They have realized what magical discounting, buffet-packages, timeshares, and meet and greets will do for the bottom line. Much easier to keep down that road, than invest heavily in infrastructure. They can dial back or push forward most of the items in a more refined manner than substantial attraction additions. >>Let's face it -- the company isn't headed by ol' try-something-new, money-be-damned Walt.<<
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Weiss got the boot for no other reason that he was given a cushy position to move up to under Jay, he got in the way more than helped in that new position, cost the company a lot of money in his own contract for little tangible results, and was no longer wanted with Jay gone. He would have been a pimple on a whale when it came to selling that division. I wouldn't draw any correlation with a theory of selling<<< So, meaning that it had nothing to do with Staggs and a new policy, then, correct? Posts like these, besides, being very much appreciated, I think, are telling to what Staggs might be up to, not only on issues like park policy, quality, and the usual issues we talk about, but this one, too.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>The reason for the lackluster additions in Florida, as you rightfully point out, is simply for the fact that they don't feel the need. They have realized what magical discounting, buffet-packages, timeshares, and meet and greets will do for the bottom line. Much easier to keep down that road, than invest heavily in infrastructure. They can dial back or push forward most of the items in a more refined manner than substantial attraction additions<<< This. Hype up a one time visitor to the parks, get them there, make profit off of them, that's it. There's no reason to inspire guests to return on goodwill any more. (This sounds familiar...)
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>And isn't that what caused the end of Eisner?<< A refusal to listen to others (or play nicely), being mocked by folks like Rupert Murdoch on acquisitions like Fox Family and Muppets, a refusal to allow a real executive search for his replacement, picking the wrong films to choose for big budgets, picking the wrong films to market, poor results with DCA, Pixar, poor performance in attempts with the Asian market, excessive compensation, and most importantly stock performance in relation to the market and other companies in the sector. Don't underestimate how much the board and major shareholders wanted Disney to be at the fore-front of serious, lucrative M&A activity to only be shown proposals on power rangers and muppets. As much as savedisney and other fanboys wanted it to be about Tomorrowland or Superstar Limo, it wasn't.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Sorry Leo! >>Let's face it -- the company isn't headed by ol' try-something-new, money-be-damned Walt.<< No kidding! It really is too bad. I think Walt would have liked the 80's!
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>So, meaning that it had nothing to do with Staggs and a new policy, then, correct? << I'm sure it had everything to do with Staggs. Whether Spirit is on the money or giving everyone something to think about, I think it had more to do with Disney's own management of WDP&R than any thing occuring outside of it. >>Posts like these, besides, being very much appreciated, I think, are telling to what Staggs might be up to, not only on issues like park policy, quality, and the usual issues we talk about, but this one, too.<< Thanks for the kind words EE. It is always good to have conversations on here.
Originally Posted By MousDad >>TWDC is a content company<< Buying, holding, outsourcing and distributing content is not the same as being the leader in creating content. The only actively creative components of the company are films and tv, and, while there's good stuff being produced there, they are by far not the leader in those areas. In fact, I would put them 4th in animated films (behind Pixar, Dreamworks and Universal), and not even close to top 5 in motion pictures. There most successful creative output right now is shockingly (fanbois get ready to cringe) the Disney Channel. But even in that they're still 2nd place to Nickelodeon. The cold hard truth is they are a pale, glimmering shadow of what they used to be in creative content. Acquiring and managing content is not what should define this great company. So, in relation to the topic at hand: This has carried over to the parks in the past 2 decades or so. In fact, whether Spirit's warning will transpire or not, I can see the pieces of the puzzle fitting together to support it. One could easily make the argument that the homogenization, over-synergization, and lack of substantial creative investment has been prepping the parks for there eventual disposal. And make no question about it, IMO, it would be the bottom of the toilet bowl in the illustrious history of the company. What has been swirling downward for years would reach its sewerly conclusion. And speaking of feces, how about crapping all over the legacy of Walt and the geniuses who built the parks, by making their final destiny one of whoring them off for someone else to work, while the company pimps off the licensing profits. Disgusting. Whether the parks would be better, worse, the same - who knows. Could go any direction. I would have to lean that they would probably be operationally run better. But I would not be able to stomach this outcome. Thankfully, I learned to manage my Disney mental illness to the point that I can actually live a satisfied life without the company, or the parks. But the thought of Iger and his corporate ilk selling the parks off for a washing-of-hands, steady stream of income makes me disillusioned beyond belief.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>The cold hard truth is they are a pale, glimmering shadow of what they used to be in creative content. Acquiring and managing content is not what should define this great company.<< MousDad, I know that wasn't directed at me, but I can't tell you how much I agree with this point.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I'm sure it had everything to do with Staggs. Whether Spirit is on the money or giving everyone something to think about, I think it had more to do with Disney's own management of WDP&R than any thing occuring outside of it.<<<< Well then. That certainly makes me question the moves made and taken by Staggs and around him, now. Especially if you talk about Disney managing WDWPR. >>>Thanks for the kind words EE. It is always good to have conversations on here. <<< That it is!
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>One could easily make the argument that the homogenization, over-synergization, and lack of substantial creative investment has been prepping the parks for there eventual disposal. And make no question about it, IMO, it would be the bottom of the toilet bowl in the illustrious history of the company. What has been swirling downward for years would reach its sewerly conclusion.<<<< While I don't discount this at all, and in fact, agree with it... ... I don't know how this lines up with the time that Iger, Staggs, Rasulo and company have left with the company. Unless it's the last big thing for them to do, and it gets them the money they want whiile they leave the company. Somehow, I don't see them doing that... they would want to stay on and reap the benefits of such a deal. But that's just my initial reaction, it is probably flawed. >>>Whether the parks would be better, worse, the same - who knows. Could go any direction. I would have to lean that they would probably be operationally run better. But I would not be able to stomach this outcome.<<< ...Well... again, the eternal optimist here... but if someone were to buy the parks and we ended up being run akin to the OLC, and got new, unique content... I'd never look back.
