Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Just a thought as I try and catch up after a few hours of actual WORK ... BUT ... Does anyone find it strange/odd/amusing/telling that Disney installs an RFID reader system on the self serve beverage bars at the ASS's End Zone Food Court and we already not only have photos but video from numerous sources posted online, yet still not one picture of Iger, Staggs, Jobs, any other exec or BoD member from their recent WDW visit? Seriously. WDW now has a cottage industry of people who have no lives and can run to a motel they are not staying at to take pics of something so minor (and, yes, I am drinking an icey cold Coke as I type this!) YET none of them heard that these folks were around or spotted in the parks, hopped into their cars and sped under those MAGICal arches and none of them were able to track Iger and Co down and take a friendly photo (or 167)? I guess I'm just a conspiracy filled Spirit (which ie better than pixie dust), but it just speaks to the fact these people were huddled away, working on something VERY important and VERY private and nowhere near where a fanboi/blogger/podcaster was going to catch them.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm guessing that the average person / business person -- doesn't anything 'wrong' with the Disney Parks, and so would not think of 'saving' them.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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.>> I think he was fed a lot of something ... maybe even enough for a thread of its own.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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.>> I am not an Apple geek. I don't own one Apple product nor have I ever. And I haven't been brainwashed into 'loving the BRAND' as I have to some degree with Mickey and Pals. But Apple is a tech company and it's led by a man who sadly is dying. And watch what will happen to that company's stock when he passes as it won't be pretty. I am still looking for a photo of him taking the Wild Africa Trek two weeks ago with the rest of Disney's Board. I was so hoping MAGICal Steve had one of his minions snap one ;-)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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?>> Well, you are forgetting something old toilet guru ... namely Disney still Talks the Talk (even if they don't even attempt to crawl the walk). So, in theory, Disney would be holding the new owner to very similar standards to what it currently keeps. It just would be making sure the new owner lived up to the deal. Also, one need only look up I-4 to see that adding quality and investing in your parks can have a HUGE affect on the bottom line. Just because Disney is too blind and greedy to see it doesn't mean others would miss the obvious.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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? >> I think you can read too much into the whole topic. And one would argue that Disney (by lowering standards and quality and Walmarting the parks) has led to greater shareholder value. And considering the stock will skyrocket (it would be in the mid to upper 60s minimally tomorrow if a sale were announced), I don't see anyone suing because Disney wasn't running the company lean and mean for greatest (and fastest) stock holder gain.
Originally Posted By Britain So, do you reckon that D23 will be chock full of projects that will essentially be what gets pitched to the new owners? Is the line, "We've managed to keep this business afloat with very minimal investment. Just imagine the returns when you implement any of these great proposals that we held off of!"
Originally Posted By oc_dean For those of us not up to date on ... is there anyway to condense 745 posts .. into one paragraph? Might be asking the impossible, but it never hurts to ask.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o >>And one would argue that Disney (by lowering standards and quality and Walmarting the parks) has led to greater shareholder value.<< Which The Walt Disney Company has essentially argued, but would not be arguing if they wanted standards. Thus the potential problem. If the standards are the better way for the brand then why did The Walt Disney Company not pursue them?
Originally Posted By WDWVacationer Spirit, do you really think if Disney sold the parks the stock would shoot up? Seems to me that if one of the world's largest entertainment companies sold a popular and profitable divison that is among its best known and most far reaching assets, Wall Street would react much differently, the exact opposite in fact.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>And one would argue that Disney (by lowering standards and quality and Walmarting the parks) has led to greater shareholder value.<<< To further explain that it would be because the less money spent on the parks, at this point, the higher the profit would appear. Although, I do agree with the premise behind that action, I cannot believe that corporate exec's and even individuals with the kind of wealth required to obtain the P&R, would not already be completely aware of that old trick. It is pretty transparent. Since Disney P&R is right there in your face public...it would really be hard to hide that little truth. But it I were that smart I would be wealthy instead of incredibly good looking. (or as well as)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<So, do you reckon that D23 will be chock full of projects that will essentially be what gets pitched to the new owners? Is the line, "We've managed to keep this business afloat with very minimal investment. Just imagine the returns when you implement any of these great proposals that we held off of!">> I dunno. I have heard a lot of conflicting info regarding D23 and they do pull surprises too. I do know they have all sorts of pretty artwork and renderings of all sorts of projects they 'could' show ... yet I've heard everything from 'they're announcing the second Disney Decade, but they know most of the stuff won't get built' (that's from a WDI source, btw) to a 'they're going to very low key it and play up most of what has already been announced, just flesh it out much deeper'.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<For those of us not up to date on ... is there anyway to condense 745 posts .. into one paragraph? Might be asking the impossible, but it never hurts to ask. >> Not really. And I have been online far too long today (great weather in paradise mixed with waiting for phone calls isn't a great way to get things done), but if you have specific questions, ask ... To sum up a thread that started mostly as a hypothetical question based upon knowledge that Disney had looked into shopping the parks before and then took off in so many ways ... well, it would be near impossible. And I wouldn't tell you to read 75 pages unless you're a speed reader with comprehension to match, Dean! ;-)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>And one would argue that Disney (by lowering standards and quality and Walmarting the parks) has led to greater shareholder value.<< <<Which The Walt Disney Company has essentially argued, but would not be arguing if they wanted standards. Thus the potential problem. If the standards are the better way for the brand then why did The Walt Disney Company not pursue them?>> Because its smoke, mirrors and pixie dust (and playing on mentally feeble fans) allowed it to show great short term results. But it also resulted in everything from attractions where half the effects don't work to monorail deaths to lower quality food options etc. I'd also argue that Disney didn't pursue them because Disney, for a long time, hasn't seen itself in the P&R business for the long haul. You didn't see much investment at UNI-FLA for a long time either.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Spirit, do you really think if Disney sold the parks the stock would shoot up?>> I know it would. <<Seems to me that if one of the world's largest entertainment companies sold a popular and profitable divison that is among its best known and most far reaching assets, Wall Street would react much differently, the exact opposite in fact.>> Wall Street doesn't like P&R as a business. Too many variable. Look what 9/11 did to the business. Look what the depression we've been in since late 2007 has done. Look what happened when a natural disaster struck Japan and didn't really harm the resort, but forced it to remain closed for a month and a half. All of those things spell gigantic risk. Now, I believe with great risk come great rewards, but that's just how this Spirit floats. Wall Street doesn't. ESPN. That's safe. Making eight or nine Pirates films. Check. Selling mass quantities of Cars merchandise. Check. Running these huge and complex resorts with all the labor, infrastructure and investment needs? Nope. Keeps The Weatherman up at night.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o <<Because its smoke, mirrors and pixie dust (and playing on mentally feeble fans) allowed it to show great short term results. But it also resulted in everything from attractions where half the effects don't work to monorail deaths to lower quality food options etc. I'd also argue that Disney didn't pursue them because Disney, for a long time, hasn't seen itself in the P&R business for the long haul. You didn't see much investment at UNI-FLA for a long time either.>> All accurate observations that say nothing to the point of my hypothetical. The issue is not me asking "Why did Disney not do this?" it other non-fan stockholders asking in response to "new" standards that are stricter. If Disney knows this method is best for the brands, why did they not do what was best for the brands? That could be a dangerous question for the Board of Directors as it insinuates that they knowingly did not do what was in the best interest of the shareholders. The Walt Disney Company does not want people thinking they could have made more money than they did.
Originally Posted By exp_627 >>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.<< and >>Simply put, Leo, Disney would make them. Just like they do in Tokyo ...<< I hope you are right. But the will to make TDR respect the highest Disney standards comes from a time when Disney itself believed in those standards for its own parks. When looking at Paris (where Disney is only one of several stakeholders) one can observe how Disney allows things to slip so a company can make money.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<Wall Street doesn't like P&R as a business. >> So, is this also the reason why you say that a spin-off/IPO would not be good for the stock price? Because then P&R would have to be sold on Wall Street which does not want to have anything to do with it and would not believe that the IPO would be successful?
