Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this topic. I've been skimming around though, and for some reason the thought of Disney selling it's theme parks off and having them owned and operated by someone other than Disney is very depressing. Imagining traveling there suddenly isn't quite as appealing as it was before I read this topic. Why the hell is that?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Still the question remains: What do they want to do with the cash - they would have to invest it somehow. Most likely go out and buy new divisions. Is there anything out there they might want to get which would fit the image of a "distribution company"?<< You are giving them WAY too much credit. These are American executives, who are unable to look beyond nnext quarter's numbers. My guess: They'd use the money to buy back stock and raise the stock price in the process. THAT IS THE ONLY THING THEY CARE ABOUT.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Okay, these things bear repeating. One, the parks should be kept up. Two, if you go everyday, they're not going to look as good. You are too close to them. Three, take a trip to something other than Disney for a while<<< Agreed. But even if you go every day (but you shouldn't) the parks should STILL look pretty good.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Imagining traveling there suddenly isn't quite as appealing as it was before I read this topic.<<< Why? This DOES have the potential to right a lot of wrongs with WDW.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o >>Why? This DOES have the potential to right a lot of wrongs with WDW.<< It also has the potential to make things worse. A situation like the one the OLC Group agreed to is a best case scenario, but who would agree to such conditions? Any wise investor would want to speak to the OLC Group and learn about how Disney continues to push standards they do not hold, how when Disney was building Disney's California Adventure and not offering much help to Euro Disney SCA when they had to build a second park they had them finance an expansion costing a multiple of what they were spending to expand the other two single park resorts. There is also the possibility of a Euro Disney SCA situation, where to avoid the embarrassment of outright closure, the new company is allowed to operate at lower standards. Such a scenario is made easier if Disney wants an exclusive on operating the division, as the standards are in greater flux. Then there is the absolutely worst case scenario, the original Six Flags parks. The asking price may be so high, and the desire to sell so great, that Disney may well not insist on significant standards and control.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^ Agreed totally. It's very a very nerve wracking time to be a Disney Fan.....
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Third, see the above. The Four Seasons at WDW simply is not something very pressing on his radar. ---------------- I'm sorry but as much as I agree with the firt two assessments- I disagree here. There is a brand to protect here as well and each location adds or detracts to that brand. I myself believe the Four Seasons at WDW might have been DOA...and some of this meeting resurrected that albeit 2014- at least. Why the long delay - this could be ready much much sooner. Not saying there wasn;t more to the meeting than this- but something smells wrong with the hotel delivery date.>> I believe Four Seasons at WDW is dead. Totally. Whether the prince buys all/part/none of P&R, this project isn't gonna happen. DOA. What was telling on that subject was the fact you had all the important figures in town, with a chance to put a positive spin on a project that was announced in early 2007 and hasn't had one shovel of dirt dug yet, and instead you have a PR hack put a vague quote out to the O-Sentinel. Oh wait, Bill Gates wasn't in town (or has he suddenly been spotted dining at the Rose and Crown with Jay Rasulo and Danny Cockerell?) and he owns as much of a stake in the chain as the Saudi royal. And the Four Seasons brand gets protected by NOT opening in places not ready/able to support a hotel.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>>>Jason Garcia. Brady McDonald. Brooks Barnes. and a host of others should have been on this well before it appeared on discussion boards. Garcia especially gets a shot because he wrote a story on the troubled Four Seasons project and Golden Oak when all of this was going on and Iger, Staggs, the BoD, the Prince ... everyone but people like Al Weiss and Meg Crofton was in town. <<<< <<OK, you hit on EXACTLY what I hoped you would. >> I try, Explorer. You know that ... but it could have been the red, white and blue pixie dust I was snorting in massive quantities while reading The Declaration of Independence and TWDC's 2010 Annual Report! <<In what capacity do you think that Garcia and Co. is being shielded from getting news on this? It's not exactly something I would think Disney wants covered in detail.>> I have no idea. I think he has done a pretty good job of covering his beat since taking over from Powers. But he isn't stupid. Media (as far as journalism) is dying in this country and the Tribune Company is in bad shape. You'd hate to think he's thinking about his future career options when deciding what stories to push or pursue, but you'd be a fool not to as well. Reporters and editors decide what is news, often with their own agendas in mind. I'm not saying this is the case here because I just don't know. Everyone else missed it. But he should be looking into what went down now. And, no, obviously Disney didn't want any of this known. They dropped the BS line of Iger spotted with DAK's VP to a MAGICal webmaster just in case someone else mentioned he was at WDW. They needed a cover and fanbois are an easy crowd. <<Which fits nicely into the idea of the "no photo" theory.>> That just still boggles me. And convinces me they spent the vast amount of their time at WDW hidden away at the BW where no one would see them and/or snap a photo. In 2011, Bob Iger (leaving out the royalty, Staggs and the BoD) doesn't go anywhere in the Disney universe and not get his picture taken.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Garcia has a puff piece about DAK Lodge that went up this afternoon. <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com...01.story>>" target="_blank">http://www.orlandosentinel.com...>></a> Yep, saw that, Leo. But that's something that could have been written and 'in the can' a month ago the way papers operate today. And as much as I love DAK Lodge, it was a puff piece. No mention on how the resort was the least popular deluxe (not by me, certainly!) and discounted rooms were available there from Day 1. No mention on why even DVC hasn't sold there the way Disney expected. No mention on how the food offerings have been dumbed down because of unsophisticated American palettes. No mention on how when it opened it was almost entirely staffed by folks from African nations and now they are a small portion. No mention of a lot of things ... <<But no word on the Magical Meeting of Big Shots or the For Sale sign in front of Cinderella Castle.>> Nope. I'm still waiting to see whether Disney feels the need to put out a denial to the media that anything at all took place.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<btw- I absolutely agree Lasseter has been a major disappoinment from what I expected of him.. I was hoping he'd be the Disney quality link with the family uninvolved now..>> I would have hoped for more, but John's focus has largely been on Pixar, WDFA and DL ... in that order and exclusively. He's kept the billions flowing into the coffers with Pixar's creative output (and Cars 2 is still going to be hugely successful for them when all is said and done regardless of apparently being the first 'not even that good' film in 12) ... he's helped bring WDFA back from the dead (look at PaF and Tangled ... and even Bolt was a decent film) ... and DL is getting plenty of love, well, actually the DLR is more than the park but ... Yes, I do wish John was the second coming of at least Eisner if he couldn't be Walt. But I think this is what he is. And at least he gives a damn, which is more than I can say more most at the company these days.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Everyone was just fine with the guy until Cars 2 came out and the Carsland fiasco got leaked. Yet Jim MacPhee, a figure just as lauded by fanboys, has been in his position for several years and no one in the community has heard a peep from him, but he still manages to get worshipped for no reason other than Celebration 25. >> Fanbois are a poor gauge of whether some exec is doing a good job or not. They are being played by Staggs and Kalogridis and Cockerell, for example, because they are savvy to sites such as this. I also have a little theory about Al Lutz and Georgie K too ... will leave that one for another day.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Granted, I don't expect them to give us details, that would be poor business, but some information could come in the guise of the news, a statements... anything?>> <<I am not sure about how things work in the US, but here in Germany a public company would be required to publish certain information which would influence the share price within a certain amount of time to avoid insider trading. You can't just go around and hint at stuff. Either it is still not decided and therefore not made public, but once a decision is reached, it needs to be out in the public. And selling a division of your company (or part of that division) definitely would be something that can affect share prices. In the light of this, Spirit's theory about the timing of the meeting does make a lot of sense. >> Exactly. Disney doesn't have to make any/every business discussion open to the world just because they are a publicly traded company. But if something is decided upon ... say selling a 25% interest in P&R to anyone, well that immediately must be announced. You can't wait and play 'let's see how the market is doing' ... <<Still the question remains: What do they want to do with the cash - they would have to invest it somehow. Most likely go out and buy new divisions. Is there anything out there they might want to get which would fit the image of a "distribution company"?>> I could see them making a play for certain cable outlets, possibly another gaming company (I don't get this obsession with it, but every media company is involved ... I gave up playing games when I reached my 20s, but I know people in their 70s who own systems). That said, the biggest 'gain' that could come out of this is a huge surge in the stock price (and, yes fanbois, again that's what Wall Street would think of Disney ditching the parks) and, as another poster has pointed out, a share buy back would make perfect sense. Contrast it with an IPO where Disney shares would likely take a significant sized (like say the average WDW guest) hit. <<The Disney P&R division, contrary to what many WDW-centric fans would have you believe, is dwarfed in its value to TWDC by its cable holdings.>> <<Yes, I was rather surprised when this topic made me look at numbers: according to wikipedia in 2010 only 17% of the net income of TWDC was from P&R, while Disney Media Network produced 67% of the net income. No surprise that these numbers make some people question whether WDP&R is still a good fit considering that it is so cost intensive.>> Parks and Resorts are not the cash cow of Disney by far. Four letters: E-S-P-N (dadaduh-dadaduh). <<It does mean Disney's P&R Division IS on the block. They want to sell, and this has to concern all fans. Again, because if you are looking to sell something, you're only going to minimally invest in it.>> <<I agree, the scenario of WDP&R being on the market indefinitely is much more scary than it being sold off. A new investor is much more likely to care for long-term quality than someone who rather wants to get rid of it. >> Since I've been told Disney has looked into the possibility as far back as 2007 (and who's to say they didn't before then?), one might look at Disney like a Florida homeowner trying to sell and leave 'paradise' for years. They aren't putting in swimming pools and jacuzzi spas, redoing the foyer with Italian marble tile and installing new appliances.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Not sure how it plays into the discussion here (which is fascinating!), but Al Lutz has a blurb up today about an executive restructure coming soon that is rumored to give Disneyland more "autonomy" from Florida. >> I was informed of Al's blurb tonight. Again, I think his fanboi crush on George K is getting a bit absurd. Disney hasn't spent years and countless $$$ to centralize everything under One Disney to simply do a 180 now and head in the other direction. Wish it were true. ... And at the same time people are commenting that DCA's new dining locations have had WDW chefs around and the menu options are similar (in some cases exactly) to offerings at WDW. And funny how Al forgets that DL is being run by a WDW 'lifer' ... other than his 18-month disaster as Cynthia's #2 (in more ways than one) and his recent three years in Paris, he's been a WDW guy since 1971. He hopefully learned a lot after his first stint out there (and from his partner who works at TDA) ... and I think he has to some degree. He owes the Spirit some credit as well ... Rule No. 1 for any DLR Prez: Make Nice with Al Lutz! <<Obviously something is up, but I still just can't get my mind around DisCo selling off the parks division to an Arab sheik or Warren Buffet or Beijing or anyone really. >> Sadly, in 2011, I can believe just about anything.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Okay, these things bear repeating.>> Manny, baby, I often repeat myself til I'm blue in the face (or maybe that's the pixie dust). Doesn't mean people comprehend what I am saying. I am misquoted so often I should be a politician! <<One, the parks should be kept up.>> Yes. And that's an absolute to me. No excuses. You just do it. OLC can. Disney can when it wants to. And needs to want to every day or go ahead and sell to someone you can force to do what you are unwilling to. <<Two, if you go everyday, they're not going to look as good. You are too close to them.>> I'd say if you go every day or even every week you likely have some psychological issues that need to be addressed ... unless you work there. And, no, bloggers/podcasters/webmasters ... hanging in the parks like you would a mall isn't work, no matter how you spin it or how many spins on Dumbo you take so you can get video 'over the walls'. <<Three, take a trip to something other than Disney for a while.>> I'm putting together a trip to the Land of the Palins ... anyone want to contribute to my 'Send a Spirit North to Alaska' fund? Totally tax deductible and I'll send you a copy of Eyes and Ears from 1995 and/or a 1999 Disney Store LE pin and/or a 1996 Disney-MGM Studios guide map with a donation of at least $100.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 And the Four Seasons brand gets protected by NOT opening in places not ready/able to support a hotel. --- agreed which is why I am surprised the deal wasn't just killed. The time is not right- and maybe the fit will never work - hard to say. But was it a topic of discussion with this group- I am willing to bet it was
Originally Posted By vbdad55 (and Cars 2 is still going to be hugely successful for them when all is said and done regardless of apparently being the first 'not even that good' film in 12) funny, I think not only is it a better film than the first Cars- it should have more appeal outside of the US.. NASCAR scene
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this topic. >> Stop the BBQing ... put the brew down ... extinguish the sparklers and start readin', Connie. <<I've been skimming around though, and for some reason the thought of Disney selling it's theme parks off and having them owned and operated by someone other than Disney is very depressing. Imagining traveling there suddenly isn't quite as appealing as it was before I read this topic. Why the hell is that?>> I don't know. I hear that from people in the fan community. I don't get the emotional attachment to a cold, hard, faceless multi-national media conglomerate. This isn't Walt's company. These aren't his parks (hell, he might have hated the idea that there were ever more than DL and MK ... he wasn't looking to build McDisneylands across the globe). What if someone else can run them better? They already are doing so in Japan and have been for 28 years now. They sold off the stores because they couldn't run them anymore before buying them back for a steal. They bought another company (Pixar) because they couldn't produce quality feature animation any longer. They bought another company (Marvel) because they couldn't produce original quality product that appealed to certain demos. In other words, this isn't anything near as drastic as people might think.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Which fits nicely into the idea of the "no photo" theory ---- what about the possibility Steve Jobs requested this-- I know his health is not good and any stockholder of that level with health issues will cause speculation and potential stock movement issues
Originally Posted By GOB Spirit, you seemed slightly optimistic that new P&R ownership would mean OLC-type standards for the parks, but is there anything to indicate thatDisney execs would make such a contractual stipulation?
Originally Posted By pheneix Man the rumor mill has been on fire this weekend. Mickey Mouse better learn how to speak Chinese. That's all I can add.
