Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<In other posts, you berate the corporate cars as being an extravagance and wasteful spending. Here, you insinuate that the cars are a deal through the GM sponsorship. Which is it going to be?>> How about both? They are extravagant perqs handed out like jelly beans or something even less valuable ... say LE Disney pins ... to execs. The execs do NOT pay a penny for the cars. ... I don't know the details of Disney's deal with GM, but they are tossed in as part of the deal. If GM pulls out tomorrow, then it is reasonable to think that a lot of execs are going to have to actually spend their own money for cars ... until (or if) Disney finds a replacement. Toyota is being bandied about as the most likely to replace GM ... so you trade a Caddy for a Lexus ... to me, it sounds like a step up.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Perhaps, but Toyota did not take US gov't bailout money.>> I am still waiting for my government bailout ... oh yeah ... I forgot, I'm not a terribly mismanaged multi-national corporation that should cease to exist so I don't get anything. BOO!!! <<GM is in a bad position, as if it renews the sponsorship, it could be accused of squandering taxpayer money, much as Wall Street was over the executive bonuses and Wells Fargo Bank was over the retreat in Las Vegas.>> It should be. It would be like stealing money from a church or charity ... that's what these 'bailouts' really are. GM already has almost $15 billion in taxpayer funds and it wants another sum in the same 'hood ... all I can think of is how much good you could do for REAL people with that kind of money. Funny how socialism is evil ... until it is needed to prop up a capitalist system that has crashed under its own excesses. And the Chinese want to be like us ... scary.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>The execs do NOT pay a penny for the cars. ... I don't know the details of Disney's deal with GM, but they are tossed in as part of the deal.<<< Surely there are significant tax implications?
Originally Posted By u k fan It seems odd that car manufacturers are helped out whilst other businesses are folding left right and center. I like the sound of "Test Track, brought to you by Injury Lawyers 4U"!!!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Surely there are significant tax implications?*** If used for personal reasons, yes indeed (lots of people like to skip over that part though, just ask the President lol).
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>>The execs do NOT pay a penny for the cars. ... I don't know the details of Disney's deal with GM, but they are tossed in as part of the deal.<<< <<Surely there are significant tax implications?>> One would think ... ~Disney's New Best Kept Secret: $9.99 Stock Coming Soon!~
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< In a world where a 30 second spot on the Superbowl telecast costs $3 mil, $10 million really ain't that much money. And it's all out of the advertising and promotions budget, which every company has to keep working no matter how hard the times. I'm hoping GM will realize the return on investment that they get by putting their product in front of that many captive customers every year, and renew the contract in some form. >>> Note that I'm not saying that I think a $10 million sponsorship of TT is a waste of money, but that may very well be the public perception. Much like many companies are now reportedly relocating corporate meetings away from Las Vegas and into other cities not to save money, but to avoid the perception of excess and waste. As a side note, it's interesting that the image that Las Vegas has so carefully crafted for itself and spent lots of money doing so has now come full circle and is driving away a certain amount of business.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Surely there are significant tax implications?>> There are (or perhaps were) loopholes to avoid this. If it could be "proven" that the vehicle was used for business purposes tax liability (for the exec) could be avoided.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<My guess is since Disney has a contract for special tires through Goodyear, they may be interested.>> Goodyear is running on fumes. Not likely. I'll bet HP will not renew its Mission Space sponsorship (which they inherited from Compaq) once the contract expires. And HP makes $8B+ profit per year.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn If you want GM to responser, then here's the trick: Buy GM products. Get get a return on investment, they actually have to get a return. Why sponsor anyway? Is Disney still paying loans on the construction of TT? Do the ticket prices not cover the operation?
Originally Posted By SuperDry The article says that the best guess is that GM pays Disney some $5 million a year for the sponsorship agreement. <<< Why sponsor anyway? Is Disney still paying loans on the construction of TT? Do the ticket prices not cover the operation? >>> None of that matters. Whether TT is paid off or not is irrelevant. Whether ticket prices cover operation is irrelevant. If the deal ends, WDW (and probably more specifically, Epcot) will get $5 million a year less than it does now, and this will have to be made up elsewhere just to break even with the way things currently are.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> None of that matters. Whether TT is paid off or not is irrelevant. Whether ticket prices cover operation is irrelevant. If the deal ends, WDW (and probably more specifically, Epcot) will get $5 million a year less than it does now, and this will have to be made up elsewhere just to break even with the way things currently are. << They'll just jump the food prices across property. That seems to be the trend anyway.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< They'll just jump the food prices across property. That seems to be the trend anyway. >>> That's the danger, or something similar to it. It's not as if the withdrawal of GM's sponsorship is going to cause WDW's earnings goals to the P&R division to be decreased. More likely, such a situation would probably be considered a local WDW problem that they are responsible for dealing with.
Originally Posted By MPierce GM will definetly hurt their bottom line. I think you are going to see more companys dropping out of sponsorships. Evidently Disney is not the easiest company to deal with.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Disney isn't a great partner, no doubt about it. Remember, many companies started ending sponsorship deals in the great, money-flowing like a fountain 1990s ... There used to be a special cache for corporations to associate themselves with Mickey and Co. ... now not so much. I'd offer to sponsor TT except I can't stand it ... hell, I'd rather take a test drive in a new GM vehicle then ride it. Maybe we could get a group together here? ~Will Sponsor For FREE DVC~
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I'd offer to sponsor TT except I can't stand it ... hell, I'd rather take a test drive in a new GM vehicle then ride it. << WOW....you really don't like TT do you. I'm not a big fan either. I think I road it a total of 3 times, and one of those I had to walk off it. I just never could understand all the hype about it.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<WOW....you really don't like TT do you.>> I would rather see the AIE ... MUCH rather! ~Disney's Newest Best Kept Secret: We laid off most of the research department last week!~
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< ~Disney's Newest Best Kept Secret: We laid off most of the research department last week!~ >>> If this is true, who will develop the guest surveys that are designed to ratify the already-decided decisions? Will they just skip that step now?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <hell, I'd rather take a test drive in a new GM vehicle then ride it. < yikes ! Even if it's a Buick ? Buick slogan....no one too old to drive one of these-- average age of buyer almost 70.. I told me wife if I ever look at a Buick when I'm older- put me in a home, I have lost it..
