Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^Didn't say they voted, Manny. And you are semi-correct, they only would have to file if/when a sale was/is pending. I said 'they agreed' ... as to the framework/parameters needed.
Originally Posted By Manfried Oh, you are copping out with semantics? You said they approved. The only way that happens is with a vote. I went on the SEC site and an awful lot of directors exercised options to purchase Disney stock on 6/30. One officer of the company exercised their options to buy, but also sold them the same day. Guess that officer does not have a lot of faith.
Originally Posted By Britain Wow. Well, I don't want the parks being run by anybody who doesn't want to run the parks. Any takers?
Originally Posted By Manfried Maybe Matt Ouimet could put together a bid to combine Disney with Cedar Fair.
Originally Posted By exp_627 >>Well, it will affect you as you stated above ... because if it happens, things will be different. Likely better.<< Apologies for making my introduction to this thread by slightly disagreeing: Why should it get better? I don't want to sound all doom and gloom. But any investor would look at the way Disney has been operating its parks and resorts over the past 20 years. Now why would anyone want to increase budgets for maintenance, for new monorail fleets, shiny new E–ticket rides at the MK, at DHS, at DLP ... when TWDC has clearly made a nice profit by not doing so for years? Not to mention that anyone taking over P&R would have to carry the extra burden of having to pay royalties to Disney – which by the way is where Euro Disney's earnings go each year... So, why would a sell of Disney's parks and resorts mean that things would be automatically better?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>These are serious matters. VERY serious. I don't know anything about what CMs are saying on CM boards, since I'm not a CM, I don't haunt those realms.<<< Exactly, very serious especially to a CM. Who would be more directly affected by such a sale then the CM's. I am completely aware of the questionable reliability of information or comments made by CM's, but, as you say, this is BIG. With 50K plus CM's at WDW alone, how could this not be a topic of discussion and concern? They are quick to go with non-reality based rumors, why would this escape all of them? _______________________________ >>>>And what would you expect, Goof? I can't report things when they aren't known. And no matter what I put out here (and please stay awake for my next post on this thread because it is a doozy ... will have passive aggressive fanbois and podcasters whining from sea to shining sea!), all I'll get is typical 'that's just speculation' or the like (you should see how nasty some of these online crazies can be).<<<< I don't think that you should report things before they become verifiable. The exact opposite, but to state, in effect, that you know something that you are to privileged to share, is the same as yelling loud and clear...I KNOW SOMETHING YOU DON'T...NANER, NANER, NANER! It is the opposite of saying, "Well, I've heard some rumors but have not been able to verify their validity. I'll let you know when I do. That I can respect. __________________________________ >>>>I readily admit this thread was started speculation WITH A FIRM FOUNDATION IN FACT.<<<< No, it had a foundation of...as far as I can tell it's fact. Nothing is fact until it is reality. Until then it is just plain old speculation. __________________________________ >>>>But my 'speculation' is a helluva lot more important to what your future WDW trips will be like than any thread on monorails, FP or mugs (and I've been a soda thief proudly since 1997!)<<< It very well may be, but I am not that easily lead. I don't know what your connection with Disney is, but unless you real life identity is Bob Iger then you are as open to rumor as the rest of us. Your track record is pretty good, but knowing that an attraction or a change of personnel is about to change or upgrade is not the same as this. Sorry, I need proof, and I have made it obvious that I am not physically, financially or emotionally tethered to the Wonderful Worlds of Disney. I am not in denial because I can see the good as well as the bad that could come from this. I don't necessarily think a change of ownership would be a terrible thing. _________________________________ >>>And when did you hear about Disney buying ABC/Cap Cities? (at least there was chatter Eisner wanted a network then) When did you hear Disney was in talks to buy Pixar? When did you hear Disney was in talks to buy Marvel?<<< As far as ABC or Marcel was concerned. No, I personally didn't, but I need to qualify that with the fact that I wasn't looking for it. Pixar...was talked about constantly everywhere and was a given that if Disney wanted to stay in the animation business at all they were going to have to join forces with Pixar. No brainer there. _____________________________ >>>>But who do you think knows what's been going down at Disney? And do you think if any of the CMs who post online had an inkling of what was discussed and agreed on (see my next post ... it's a gem!) that they would place it online and immediately lose their job and, possibly, face legal action?<<<< I'm not even talking about stating facts here. I'm talking about reacting to rumors, expressing opinions or concerns if it did come down. I know Bob and company doesn't go to the parks and pull CM's aside and say..."Listen, let me tell you what we are up too", however, to not see any comments from the group that this will directly affect, it just places concern in my thinking. ______________________________ >>>Amazing that we still haven't seen one photo. I'd say Disney did a damn fine job in keeping this quiet.<<< Very true, especially in a world where we are able to find out the sex life of people we never even heard of until the scandal "broke". Very hard to think that no one, with a camera and no direct ties to Disney, would not have been all over this.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 I hope they only sell WDW and unload that while elephant. Leave Anaheim ALONE....
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Oh, you are copping out with semantics? You said they approved. The only way that happens is with a vote. I went on the SEC site and an awful lot of directors exercised options to purchase Disney stock on 6/30. One officer of the company exercised their options to buy, but also sold them the same day. Guess that officer does not have a lot of faith<<<< They could have spoke about it in the affirmative, to forestal voting, exactly for that reason. Certainly possible.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Oh, you are copping out with semantics? You said they approved. The only way that happens is with a vote.<< I believe they can decide to search for a buyer without any public disclosure. Once the sale happens ... then yes, public disclosure is required.
Originally Posted By dagobert How long does such a permission for selling the parks last? I mean, what if Disney can't find a buyer within a year, does Iger have to ask the BoD again for permission? Does the permission also include a spin off company in which TWDC holds a significant stake?
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I don't want to sound all doom and gloom. But any investor would look at the way Disney has been operating its parks and resorts over the past 20 years. Now why would anyone want to increase budgets for maintenance, for new monorail fleets, shiny new E–ticket rides at the MK, at DHS, at DLP ... when TWDC has clearly made a nice profit by not doing so for years? Not to mention that anyone taking over P&R would have to carry the extra burden of having to pay royalties to Disney – which by the way is where Euro Disney's earnings go each year... << I've kinda wondered the same thing, but from a slightly different angle. What would the Weatherman and Company have to say to convince a potential buyer to purchase P&R? That's kind of a scary idea to contemplate. Weatherman: "We've demonstrated over the past ten years that WDW will remain profitable even with minimal investment. The fans are addicted. The one-time visitors are willing to be bilked." I mean, why would a potential buyer look at the success of this business model (turn the place into a timeshare and hotel oasis -- ignore the parks for the most part) and decide to veer from that course? I don't necessarily believe a new owner would be worse than Disney, but I'm curious why we could realistically expect a new owner to be better.
Originally Posted By Manfried Al Lutz's column today is, for a change, a nice analysis of things with regards to potential sales, and more.
Originally Posted By SSE At this point I hope Disney sells their P&R business. The company has spent so much time dismantling the legacy that Walt created, that anyone could probably do better than they are.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Oh, you are copping out with semantics? You said they approved. The only way that happens is with a vote.>> No copping out. You vote when you have a deal. You have to have BoD agreement to actively pursue a deal. The former has to be made public, while the latter does not. ... May be semantics, but is a hugely important point. <<I went on the SEC site and an awful lot of directors exercised options to purchase Disney stock on 6/30. One officer of the company exercised their options to buy, but also sold them the same day. Guess that officer does not have a lot of faith.>> Very interesting and telling ... what do you think that means? ... I'm sure the meeting in O-Town had nothing to do with it at all. Did you hear the entire BoD, Iger and Staggs took the Wild Africa Trek together? ;-)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Wow. Well, I don't want the parks being run by anybody who doesn't want to run the parks.>> Have you been to WDW in the past dozen years? It's pretty obvious who doesn't want to run them. <<Any takers?>> That is apparently the $18 billion (people keep saying higher, I don't agree but I am not a money Spirit) question.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Apologies for making my introduction to this thread by slightly disagreeing: Why should it get better? I don't want to sound all doom and gloom. But any investor would look at the way Disney has been operating its parks and resorts over the past 20 years. Now why would anyone want to increase budgets for maintenance, for new monorail fleets, shiny new E–ticket rides at the MK, at DHS, at DLP ... when TWDC has clearly made a nice profit by not doing so for years? Not to mention that anyone taking over P&R would have to carry the extra burden of having to pay royalties to Disney – which by the way is where Euro Disney's earnings go each year... So, why would a sell of Disney's parks and resorts mean that things would be automatically better?>> I firmly believe Disney would have minimum levels of investment/development etc annually built into any contract that the buyer would have to follow. I also believe those numbers/levels would be higher than they are now. I've said it before, but I'll repeat: I'd except the parks to see more love, but not to a Tokyo/OLC level. And I do think anyone coming in would review much of the operating structure of the parks and realize the areas that Disney wastes tremendous amounts annually on, everything from the building of new projects to levels of management that exists simply to exist etc and make cuts there with that money quite likely going back into the parks themselves since they wouldn't be used like an ATM as Disney has.
Originally Posted By SSE Spirit do you know if there will be a certain level of quality that Disney will expect the buyer to maintain if they do sell the parks? I'm not expecting TDR level quality but half or even a quarter of that for WDW would be an improvement. I can't imagine them selling and then just letting the new owners let the parks decay even more.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Now we're almost three weeks into this topic and yet not major news outlet has picked this up? Wouldn't at least a small kernel have emerged?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I don't necessarily believe a new owner would be worse than Disney, but I'm curious why we could realistically expect a new owner to be better.<<< Because Disney would hold them to the hugh standard that they expect out of themselves but can't execute because of greed, logistics, and the management. A other company would HAVE to meet those requirements, Disney cam choose what they do.
