Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Things that come to mind: Each park operates as a very different brand, with unique ticket prices and packages.<<< I don't know about that... Disney, of course, would still have some control over how the parks are marketed and maintained. LIke TDR... Granted, they have unique deals, but TDS is still attached to TDL.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I don't see how taking the company private would change anything.>> Never gonna happen, so let that fly away ... <<Spirit, I am confused a bit by your comparison to the Disney Store deal. Are you insinuating that the licensing agreement arranged with The Children's Place was purposefully egregious with the intent to buy back the Stores at a reduced price later?>> Nope, not saying that. When Disney dumped the stores they had pretty destroyed them. They were filthy, falling apart remnants of what had been a great extension of the parks and the BRAND world-wide. But putting them in every mall on every corner and Walmarting the merchandise and selling it for more than Walmart was a death blow. They thought that CP would either resurrect them somehow, after investing a lot of money, and Disney would still get its cut. Or, they'd die and it wouldn't be Disney's problem. But the opportunity came to buy them back for a small price and Disney, which still owned/operated the stores in Europe, decided why not? It was a great move. Just an example, but imagine selling your troubled car for $50,000 to someone else and then you wind up being able to buy it back later for $7,800. <<Are you also saying that that would be the intent with regards to the parks?>> I am saying that is not really the intent ... but they'd love it if they could pull off something like that. <<As has been stated previously, and I'm sure much more eloquently by others in this thread, the real sticking point is that there aren't any qualified buyers out there. The buy-in cost alone would be prohibitively expensive for most. For Disney, the upside is huge and I can definitely see them exploring their options. But who would possibly bite at terms Disney would find acceptable?>> For most. But there are venture capital firms that could do this type of deal ... and there are very wealthy individuals like the one dude who owns 42.5% of The Four Seasons chain as well as a significant slice of DLP. It wouldn't be easy to do a deal. But it wouldn't be impossible. <<The long-term vision for P&R is definitely a problem. It will be interesting to see what happens post-Aluani. But they've been talking about/experimenting with local, smaller Disney Parks projects for twenty years with zero success stories.>> The problem is they don't have any long term vision. When's the last time you saw a preview center at WDW? The only reason DCA has the Blue Sky Cellar is because John Lasseter demanded it. But even there, what's on the horizon post Carsland (aka next summer)? And what about DLP? ... and why can't Disney even put out a list of its (sorry, Mike) 'menu' for Shanghai DL? Knowing there's going to be a Stitch ride (which there is!) doesn't let any of the 'alleged' copycats (and again, these are the evil, vile, Godless, pinko Commies who could shut down any of the parks on the spot) know what type of ride system, environment/setting etc. Yet, you hear very little. Nothing to get excited about as a fan. Now, I've been told to expect lots of very pretty artwork and models (and a few announcements) at the D23 Expo. But I've also been told not to expect much of what is shown to ever appear again, except perhaps in a coffee table book. There's no long term plan, which lends credence to the thought that whether Disney remains in the parks business or not, their heart just ain't in it. As to smaller projects, they seem so deluded in what they could be, that they never happen. Anyone recall that D.C. hotel project that was announced 3-4 years ago? That's about as far along as the Four Seasons WDW or Flamingo Crossings or anything in DL's Tomorrowland or Festival Arena area.
Originally Posted By dagobert Thanks to the time difference between Europe and the US, it's really hard to keep up here. It's a very interesting topic. If I recall it correctly, the most likely possibility is to spin off the Parks & Resorts Divisin from the mother company. Would that include the assetts Disney has in DLRP, HKDL and SHDL? If TWDC would spin off that division, would that mean they would be the single shareholder of the new company or would other companies have the possibilty to buy in?
Originally Posted By dagobert Another question: Since TWDC is heavily involved in the Shanghai project, wouldn't it be a huge burden for the new company to bring in the capital for the SHDL operating company?
Originally Posted By MousDad >>Bob Iger's philosophy with regard to his vision of TWDC was that Iger didn't see the parks and resorts as an essential part of the whole, but as a liability.<< I don't know who is the bigger [insert derogatory expletive of your choice], Iger, or the [insert various derogatory expletives of your choice] who gave him his job.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Since TWDC is heavily involved in the Shanghai project, wouldn't it be a huge burden for the new company to bring in the capital for the SHDL operating company?<<<< Isn't the Shanghai Shendi Group responsible for most of it? I think they would have to pay.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I don't know who is the bigger [insert derogatory expletive of your choice], Iger, or the [insert various derogatory expletives of your choice] who gave him his job.<<< Eisner...?
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""...I thought that Iger was hand picked by Eisner to be his successor."" Yes and No. Eisner has no choice but ao appoint Iger his succesor since he was techniaclly #2 at the time of the SaveDisney drama. But Eisner repeatedly berated Iger a number of times on his creative abilities, especially at ABC, and that "he can never run TWDC". Iger was also dissed by other ABC people saying that " The Bob i met years ago, no longer exists" It was VERY CLEAR that Iger was going to be worse than Eisner dispite the smokescreen of rebuilging DCA and New Fantasyland '12. He has turned THWDC into a holding company and destroyed ABC so Eisner was totally right.
Originally Posted By MousDad Interesting reading. Robert A. Iger is the only member of the board with any substantial experience in the entertainment industry (as president of ABC). The other 16 members are real experts in software/tech, social networking/internet, cosmetics, food, retail, manufacturing, securities, investment banking and energy. Hmmmmmmmmm.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros And when exactly was it that Iger was president of ABC? Wasn't it during the very long period when the network produced sub-par results? Hmmm....
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Board members hire CEO's.<<< There was some grooming, though... Ugh.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>It's so nice to see people waking up about The Weatherman. << As long as TWDC is financially doing well, he is pretty safe in his job. And currently there is no one like Roy Disney to start another Save Disney campaign.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>As long as TWDC is financially doing well, he is pretty safe in his job. And currently there is no one like Roy Disney to start another Save Disney campaign.<<< Even so, it's pretty well established that he's on his way out. Which is why Staggs' sudden movements in the company are looked at with a great deal of interest. (AKA, what's going on with Weiss and why we don't have a answer on that.... )
Originally Posted By dagobert When is his contract running out? So is there a chance that after his current tenure, there could be a new CEO?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer I'm just going by my memory, but I would think he has 10 years. So... 2006-2016?
Originally Posted By dagobert That's a long time, which means another five years with franchises and movie sequels. I have to admit that after Eisner I thought that he is the right choice, but it seems Roy Disney was right. Unfortunately he and Stanley Gold agreed to put their campaign down and work with Iger. At least he saved the Pixar troubles.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Even if he goes bye bye what does anyone expect in terms of a replacement? There is no one on the board who is going to say..."I know, we need a real creative person as CEO." Just not going to happen. Plus I am not sure there is anyone out there who fits that bill. As for Iger. Whether he goes or stay depends on one thing, it's the economy stupid. Like the US President, Iger will remain in office as long as the company is profitable and seems to be moving forward.
