Originally Posted By HMButler79 The Swamp already feels like it hasnt been run by WDC in 15yrs so it would make no difference.
Originally Posted By MousDad >>... 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. << Uh, this would be a quick and dirty Wall Street hit. Cash in the options-and see ya. Hang around to reap the benefits? More like swipe the cash and leave your predecessors to go all GM. >>...Well... again, the eternal optimist here...<< and I've been trying so hard to fix that... >> 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. << Operational improvement would be welcome, but I'm not sure we would see the investment in long-term creativity and originality that we are all craving, and that would be present if a company was holding its treasured legacy in high esteem.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>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. << Why wouldn't I? Spirit may very well be some perverse canary in the coal mine, but the marginalization of Al Weiss that Lee alluded to, and then later forced retirement, in my eyes, was nothing more than a way to get rid of rubbish in his future management of the division.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>The Swamp already feels like it hasnt been run by WDC in 15yrs so it would make no difference. << See, I look at it the other way. It seems run by WDC more than ever. The synergy has been out of control. But, regardless, witty point Butler!
Originally Posted By Bolna <<...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. >> Being an optimist myself I can very much agree with you on that - if I could experience WDW as people tell me it was in say 1991, it would not matter to me who owned it. But - it appears to me that deals like that normally are heavily financed, burdening the assets that are sold with quite some debt. And we know how a park with a large debt burden can look like - DLP is the perfect example.
Originally Posted By leemac <<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. >> Consumers disagree with you - guess how many Disney features are now in the Top 10 movies of all time? 5 - 3 POTC movies, TS3 and Alice in Wonderland. They absolutely are one of the top studios in the world. POTC: On Stranger Tides is the third most successful release EVER outside of the US - only Titanic and Avatar have been bigger.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Uh, this would be a quick and dirty Wall Street hit. Cash in the options-and see ya. Hang around to reap the benefits? More like swipe the cash and leave your predecessors to go all GM.<<< That's what I feared. >>>Operational improvement would be welcome, but I'm not sure we would see the investment in long-term creativity and originality that we are all craving, and that would be present if a company was holding its treasured legacy in high esteem.<<<< The OLC seems to do a great job... I mean, TDS. That's proof enough. But as we all are thinking, it's not inherent that we would get a OLC in ORL.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Why wouldn't I? Spirit may very well be some perverse canary in the coal mine, but the marginalization of Al Weiss that Lee alluded to, and then later forced retirement, in my eyes, was nothing more than a way to get rid of rubbish in his future management of the division.<<< And this is why I am nervous. LOL
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Being an optimist myself I can very much agree with you on that - if I could experience WDW as people tell me it was in say 1991, it would not matter to me who owned it.<<<< Exactly. <<<<But - it appears to me that deals like that normally are heavily financed, burdening the assets that are sold with quite some debt. And we know how a park with a large debt burden can look like - DLP is the perfect example.<<<< Also exactly, seeing that they would be sold as is, not as a entity to be built like the Japanese Parks. Unless WDW and DL get prettied up before they are boxed off.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer And just a interesting note on the title... "Disney Parks" on the market..? It's been bandied about that Staggs wants to get rid of that moniker.. is there truth in that?
Originally Posted By ChiMike The only thing that should scare people in this really zainy scenario is not a new owner of the resorts, but whoever the separate entity is that buys all of the land in Orlando. And make no mistake it would be a separate pool of developers. That would really be the fall from grace in the scenario. Again, I don't see any of this happening. Not saying Spirit is wrong, it could be attempted or discussed. Yet, hard to see it reach the finish line in today's world with today's companies.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>It's been bandied about that Staggs wants to get rid of that moniker.. is there truth in that? << Gosh, I hope so. Not to mix threads, but even the Disney Parks blog has made the usage of this quasi-brand monkier into fingers on the chalkboard. Talk about corporate drivel. "We hear at Disney Parks...." "What a great day to be at Disney Parks...." Yuck
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>WDP&R has generated between 28-30% of TWDC's revenue over the past three years. However it has only contributed between 17-22% of the op income. So it isn't as profitable as other units - and in particular Media Networks that threw off 45% of revenues and a whopping 68% of op income last year (granted the Studio Entertainment group was barely break-even last year so the results were skewed).<< That in an of itself is problematic, but I'm guessing that the real bug-a-boo is growth. With a large swath of Americans facing long term financial hardship there may be concern that they will have to continue discounting the product to draw the crowds, many who in the past would tap into the home equity ATM to pay for a Disney vacation. Of course potential buyers know this as well and many probably recall what Disney did with its stores and don't want to wind up being a bagholder with a rapidly depreciating asset.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Of course potential buyers know this as well and many probably recall what Disney did with its stores and don't want to wind up being a bagholder with a rapidly depreciating asset.<< Exactly! On a ->theoretical<- transaction such as this, the due dilligence would be historic.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The first question that I have concerns who they actually want to "buy" the parks. Obviously, it's going to have to be someone who still supports the Disney image, creativity and quality that they want... seeing that they can't bring that any more. Is there a company out there that can seriously do this? Up to Disney's "standards".<<< A venture capital firm could do it, but they would have to believe that they could increase its value before they flip it to someone else. Of course this would involve cost cutting beyond anything Disney has seen before. It would probably involve mass firings in TDA and TDO, with lots of suits being given their walking papers. But it would no doubt also mean cuts inside the berms as well. The new sharp pencil boys would be quick to cut even more, if it even seems possible. Then, after showing the new and improved profits numbers the new owners would then flip it to someone else with the intent of making a few billion dollars profit.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>>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.<<< Better to get them to buy into DVC, so that the feel locked in. But even that can backfire. If DVC owners begin to believe that it's not worth it anymore they could either resell ther DVC or if there is no market they could simply stop making the annual maintenance payments and surrender it.
Originally Posted By ChiMike ^ And those actions would be partially restricted by Disney's imposed operations standards. A potential buyer would only make the purchase based on the amount of profit they can generate, and that amount of profit quantified would directly dictate the purchase price before capital investment (also calculated).
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>And those actions would be partially restricted by Disney's imposed operations standards.<< That would no doubt be the deal killer for most buyers.
