Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>It was a different time, and a different Disney Company than the one that exists today?<<< Hey, the same practices are still in effect in TDL. WDC holds others to a higher standard than they hold themselves. Here's hoping.
Originally Posted By Pentacat After nearly 800 posts the question for me is no longer if P&R are for sale but who could possibly buy them? You can forget about Steve Jobs or any other tech company for that matter. How many Epcot pavilions are sponsored by tech companies? The most logical place for a tech company to plant it's brand flag and you have Seimens(SE) and HP (MS). There are lots of deep pockets in that industry but none of them care about spending billions on a vacation spot. One of the bigger hotel chains like Mariott or Hilton? I doubt either of them could raise the cash and even if they could then they would never agree to Disney's terms. They would both want to slap their branding on EVERYTHING they could put a logo on. Are there any "visionary" entrepreneurs left that could raise the capital? Some of the sports team franchise guys come to mind like Paul Allen or Mark Cuban. However, all of these people are more interested in short term gains and don't invest in long term projects like P&R. Also, most of them will not want to be tied to a agreement with the kind of terms TWDC is likely to impose. No one in Europe is going to even notice. They just bought their own vacation resort called Greece. That leaves China, the Gulf States or maybe some gas fed Russians....place your bets.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost How does this sound... Trumpland or Donald Trump World. Has a ring to it, don't you think? The mouse could finally retire and Donald Duck could rise to the top due to the good fortune of sharing his first name with the new boss. Mickey...you're fired! Trumps Jungle Cruise Tycoons of the Caribbean Trump Mountain Trumps Hall of the CEO's Trumps Great Escape The list goes on and on.
Originally Posted By PirateFrank Lol Perhaps if the Donald buys, he can finally green light Fire Mountain.... And it can be re-themed to: "You're Fired Moutain" Seriously speaking, I'd be shocked if the parks were purchased by an American entity....when the ChiComs buy P&R, it's going to reverberate through middle America like a 100 nuclear explosions.....
Originally Posted By Manfried Visionary entrepreneurs would not buy the parks because they know there is very little room for growth in that business. It is a mature business that now needs to be managed for its cash flow and profit. Why do you think Disney trumpets the vacation clubs and the cruise ships? Because investing in the parks in Florida does not make financial sense. So if Disney was to sell them do you really think it will make them better - meaning spending tons more money on new attractions? No way. If anyone buys them, they will cut it to the bone to make as much cash as possible.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>"You're Fired Moutain"<<< Coming to Fantasyland in 2003, per WDWMagic! LOL!
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Manfried is correct. It is the main reason we have seen a lack of growth in new attractions at WDW. A friend in Imagineering told me that despite the fact that there is space for several World Showcase pavillions left, Disney has done studies that tell them that a new pavillion would not increase guest attendance enough to justify it. Even with a E-Ticket attraction. One of the benefits of a park-hopper ticket is that you can hop from park to park. One of the down sides of a park-hopper tickets is that you are going to park hop. If you buy a 4 day park-hopper ticket the reality is that you will probably visit all four parks whether you really want to or not. And the reality is that in the MK and EPCOT the addition of a new attraction will probably not extend your day at the park like it would at a DAK.
Originally Posted By Pentacat Ah the ultimate problem with are current financial environment, grow or die. There's no reward for consistent performance because all the money is made on the movement, doesn't matter if it's up or down. How many bubbles must burst before the lesson is learned. I don't think Disney really cares about attendance at the WDW parks individually. They only care about the number of rooms booked at the resort as a whole and the total merchandise sales (B&E included). They have spent years trying to drive guests to stay on property exclusively because they know that individual park investment can't drive attendance. DVC is the ultimate expression of this ideal.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<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?>> Wall Street will, for lack of a better term, 'punish' Disney if they spin the parks off because they are so closely aligned with the Disney BRAND ... meaning the stock will take a hit. They don't see a reward because they don't feel it's a good business to be in. On the other hand, by selling P&R, TWDC will be perceived as having shifted all the risk and capital expenditures to someone else while still retaining the rewards of a lucrative licensing deal and the benefits of the Disney BRAND still being on the resorts (with all that synergy still happening).
Originally Posted By Bolna <<Wall Street will, for lack of a better term, 'punish' Disney if they spin the parks off because they are so closely aligned with the Disney BRAND ... meaning the stock will take a hit. They don't see a reward because they don't feel it's a good business to be in. On the other hand, by selling P&R, TWDC will be perceived as having shifted all the risk and capital expenditures to someone else while still retaining the rewards of a lucrative licensing deal and the benefits of the Disney BRAND still being on the resorts (with all that synergy still happening).>> Ok, so you are assuming that a spin-off would have full control over everything and not be under the Disney brand? Couldn't they put the spun-off entity under the same licensing structure they would want to impose on a third party buyer?
Originally Posted By sjhym333 If Disney sold the parks they would probably impose strict rules on how that parks and brands are used. But if I own the park outright couldnt I do whatever I want with them?
Originally Posted By Bolna <<But if I own the park outright couldnt I do whatever I want with them?>> Well, not if you want to have Mickey Mouse, Cinderella and Winnie the Pooh walking around in your park, printed on park maps, paper cups or appearing in the shows etc. I understand it so that the idea is that TWDC would make sure that those licensing agreements for the intellectual property come with certain caveats for quality standards. So if those aren't fulfilled, the license can be revoked. Leaving a Walt Disney World without the right to use the name "Disney" for example. So while the owner of course would be free to do however he pleases, not following Disney's rules would end up in an economic suicide. That's why I am still not clear about why spin-off and sale would be viewed differently. Certainly with the spin-off they would be able to impose the same conditions?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Ok, so you are assuming that a spin-off would have full control over everything and not be under the Disney brand? Couldn't they put the spun-off entity under the same licensing structure they would want to impose on a third party buyer?<< The thing about a spin off is that it would dilute the value of Disney stock as assets would be transferred to the spin off. Disney shareholders would be issued new "Disney Parks" stock to reflect the transfer of asset ownership. But if they sold P&R for say 20 billion, depending on how much the parks have been depreciated over the years, it could actually increase the assets on the balance sheet. As to what Disney might use that cash for, I wouldn't be surprised if a stock buy back happened, which would push the stock price up, which is the only thing American CEOs care about anyway.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>But if they sold P&R for say 20 billion, depending on how much the parks have been depreciated over the years, it could actually increase the assets on the balance sheet. As to what Disney might use that cash for, I wouldn't be surprised if a stock buy back happened, which would push the stock price up, which is the only thing American CEOs care about anyway. << You got it. "IF" it happened, that is the scenario of what likely would happen on an investment/purchase Spirit nailed what would happen on a spinoff, other than the stock price decrease might be partially offset by folks who are bullish since they can now invest in WDC without WDP&R and are feel future earning will improve off Disney's stake in the spinoff.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> Wall Street will, for lack of a better term, 'punish' Disney if they spin the parks off because they are so closely aligned with the Disney BRAND ... meaning the stock will take a hit. They don't see a reward because they don't feel it's a good business to be in. On the other hand, by selling P&R, TWDC will be perceived as having shifted all the risk and capital expenditures to someone else while still retaining the rewards of a lucrative licensing deal and the benefits of the Disney BRAND still being on the resorts (with all that synergy still happening)<<< Now... in this... what happens to the resorts? I mean, Disney loves running and building hotels. Easy profit, customers, and reliable stock money. Is it possible that they won't sell those and The Walt Disney Hotel Company can live on?
Originally Posted By oc_dean I see my "proposal" to paraphrase a topic of 700+ posts didn't work out Lets try it this way...... On a scale of 0 to 10 ... What is the likelihood the parks will be sold off?
Originally Posted By Manfried I will say this about Disney's stock price. Even with dividends, it has done squat for over 10 years. My shares have not gone up in value in a long time. So from a purely selfish standpoint I would welcome something that would make me some more money, then I could get off this blog and move to someplace nicer than a retirement place.
