Originally Posted By dagobert >>A other company would HAVE to meet those requirements, Disney cam choose what they do.<< But why would another company agree to that? A new operator of the parks also wants to get the most money out of the parks. I think it can only get better or it stays like it is.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>>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?>> I can't speak to why front-line CMs would or wouldn't discuss anything. I know it hasn't escaped many CMs who have watched and/or escorted the investment groups around the resort. I have no idea how the rumor mill churns with them and what they are most interested in. But it likely wouldn't be smart to talk about this subject online. _______________________________ >>>>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'm sorry, but you'd never get information that way. And fan sites are loaded with speculation (fifth gates anyone? how about moving CoP to EPCOT? how about a massive new project for DAK? how about what Frank The Busdriver says?) Some of us who know (or just stumble) on things report them. I'll let my track record speak for itself. I try very hard to deal with facts and not rumor. And when I hear rumor, I generally state it as such. But I have NEVER claimed Disney was selling its parks. I simply stated that they had (am I always repeating myself here?) looked into it in the past. And then a whole lot of things happened. Now, I am saying Disney is actively shopping P&R. The only way I'll ever be 'proved' right is if they sell, which is likely why many in the online community are opting to keep their mouths shut (some like our own Leemac have work interests to protect as well). If Disney shops the P&R and even negotiates, but doesn't wind up selling, am I suddenly wrong? Of course not. All I can do is present what I know when I am able ... that's what I am doing here. __________________________________ >>>>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.>> We can go back and forth on this, but that's just not true. The facts are Disney had considered selling and looked into it with financial types on Wall Street. It may be speculation as to who said what or who was privy to it ... but it isn't speculation that those conversations occurred. __________________________________ >>>>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.>> No, I have a soul. I'm therefore NOT Bob Iger. And if you need proof, you're a smart guy, you know you aren't going to get that until it happens. It's the old tree falling in the woods deal ... _________________________________ >>>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.>> I can tell you that all three were top secret deals and they were not talked about/speculated with the caveat that insiders did know Michael wanted a network, so it wasn't a complete blindside. Pixar was thought to only be interested in having a distribution deal or going it alone. They were never looking to be bought. And nobody was saying it. Marvel was the most top secret of all. It simply and completely was held under the radar until it was done. _____________________________ >>>>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.>> That surprises me to some degree, but not as much as you'd think. ______________________________ >>>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.>> That's again my point. These people, some quite recognizable to fans/cast/guests, were supposedly out and about the resort for 3-4 days and not hidden away with lawyers and security and yet ... no one was able to get one picture. It's beyond odd and it does (whether you realize it or not) back up what I've been saying. If you are out and about someone will see you and pictures will appear. It is 2011, after all. Not 1951. When you don't get that, but you do have the BoD meeting (and make no mistake when they all meet together for that length of time, they aren't picking out color schemes for Gaston's Tavern or even deciding on a new management structure for P&R, they are doing something very important to TWDC) and you have a few 'sightings' planted with Disney friendly web sites, it again speaks to something larger at play. These VIPs were in hiding for days. That just doesn't happen.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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?>> I don't know. My guess is it would be for a significant span of time, but not unlimited. <<Does the permission also include a spin off company in which TWDC holds a significant stake?>> No, I don't believe that it does.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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.>> Simply put, Leo, Disney would make them. Just like they do in Tokyo ... And why if this happens it really would be a GOOD thing.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Al Lutz's column today is, for a change, a nice analysis of things with regards to potential sales, and more.>> Really, Manny? Al's column is a CYA piece that says absolutely nothing significant and has taken some factual liberties. I may post about them later today.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o Disney wanting a potential new owner to do things better than they have is only half the issue. Somebody has to agree to such terms. The more the search drags out the more willing The Walt Disney Company may be to demand less of the new owners.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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?>> Media is a very incestuous business. And this is a very explosive story. If all you have is chatter and no one going on the record, then it is very easy to just play the waiting game. It may even be the smart thing. There are ways around this. For instance, a reporter/columnist could write an opinion piece ... a 'why it would be a good/bad idea if Disney dumped its P&R unit.' I do know multiple media outlets and individuals have been looking into this.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Disney wanting a potential new owner to do things better than they have is only half the issue. Somebody has to agree to such terms. The more the search drags out the more willing The Walt Disney Company may be to demand less of the new owners.>> That could indeed be the case. I think a drawn out process is not a good sign ... although they may be close with one or multiple entities and playing them against each other to get more. Who knows?
Originally Posted By Bolna One of the problems of any deal which involves a separate entity running the parks is that TWDC and whoever the new owner might be would depend so strongly on each other. TWDC would have to make sure that any park which is run under there name will not damage their brand - I think this is why quite a few people are optimistic that there would be strict rules on how to operate the parks. But it also works the other way: the parks rely so much on synergy with the product TWDC puts out in other areas that a buyer would have to have a very strong trust that the brand will remain as attractive as it is right now in the future. I think that might be one of the biggest hurdles. With a CEO who seems to want to shape a new TWDC, how can a buyer know what TWDC will look like in 10 years?
Originally Posted By WDWVacationer To the Lutz talk... I'd be nice if everything in his article today was true, but I have a feeling the truth is the exact opposite of what he said. He probably was fed bad info again.
Originally Posted By Britain I know Jobs is already Disney's biggest shareholder, but in my dream of dreams, couldn't Apple buy the P&R? They're sitting on a big enough pile of cash, and the parks could become the ultimate showcase for Apple's tech. I know, dream on.
Originally Posted By njDizfan I think that could only hurt the Apple "image" of state of the art and ultra-hip. Disney is neither of these things. And a huge capital investment and hard work for only 17% profit(I think that number is correct), this isn't the Chinese happy with billions of dollars sitting in 3% yield T-Bonds.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> 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. << I don't think Disney will find a buyer if they stipulate something like this -- certainly not if Disney is going to hold a new owner to a higher standard than Disney holds itself. That would be bad business for the prospective buyer, wouldn't it?
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Disney wanting a potential new owner to do things better than they have is only half the issue. Somebody has to agree to such terms. The more the search drags out the more willing The Walt Disney Company may be to demand less of the new owners. << That's my thought, too. I don't think a buyer is going to swoop down and say they want to "save" the parks. At this point, it's all a business game. The parks and resorts are a commodity -- whatever they represented for creativity and imagination is long gone at least in this selling-off scenario. I think a potential buyer would want to duplicate Disney's half-a$$ model as closely as possible. And if Disney doesn't want that model duplicated (i.e. if they want the BUYER to IMPROVE the image of the Disney brand -- is Iger in effect hiring an outside company to improve the Disney parks brand and expecting them to pay for the chance to redeem Disney's image? How twisted is that?), then I have to quesiton if Disney will find a buyer to go along with this scheme.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o The other problem with The Walt Disney Company having higher standards to "protect the brand" is that it could open the Company up to a law suit for not doing what was best for the shareholders. These requirements cannot be best for The Walt Disney Company and the new owner of Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, then how was it not best for The Walt Disney Company as owners of Walt Disney Parks & Resorts?
Originally Posted By ChiMike That's right Leo. I said this early on the thread but will repeat it, since I am still wary of anything happening - but understand the serious panic. Any potential 'investment' in WDP&R is valued based on the income that investment will generate back to the investor. In these discussions on here, and elsewhere, some have not understood this point, more comparing it to buying a house. When you value a house you value the replacement costs of items such as fixtures and the intrinsic value of the property related to other comparable properties. In this case the cost to replace POTC is not taken into consideration. What determines any value in this so called 'investment' is pretty much the revenue that is generated by the asset. So, the overall investment would be valued at the amount of net revenue on the investment that would be projected to be received minus any continued investment necessary to participate in future capital expenses. SO, If Disney were to spin off the parks entirely while dictating that the new owner spend more money then they did on standards at the parks, that projected revenue would lower, and thus, the sale price Disney can command. It's circular. Therefore, theoretically, if Disney were to actually do this, and do it where they unload it (highly unrealistic), I don't know how many strict guidelines they would want to put in place because it would impact the market price of the transaction and defeat the purpose to begin with. I hope that makes sense.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub What is as American as Disney? The answer Beer as in Anheuser-Busch and allowing itself to slip to the point of being vulnerable to a foreign takeover...the outrage was louder than this rumor will ever be with many people swearing they would never drink In-Bev Beer...I guess they survived. Why do we think Disney is not capable of keeping secrets in the business world. Wasn't WDW land built with corporate secrets?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>But why would another company agree to that? A new operator of the parks also wants to get the most money out of the parks. <<<< The OLC did it. Why not here?
Originally Posted By leobloom It was a different time, and a different Disney Company than the one that exists today?
