Originally Posted By woody >>Don't like it? Buy the place and run it yourself. It's for sale, you know. Just start picking up shares of the stock. It really doesn't work this way. It sounds like a hostile takeover and you know what happened to Disney when they tried that in the 1980s. The shares are for sale, but not the company. There's a distinction.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "Growth is a way to keep this(takeover) from happening, by making the company one that takes over other places, rather than the reverse. " Not exactly. One can also keep the stock price up by effectivly using the money they have, paying high dividends, and being very safe and sure company. Ford's sales are oinly 3% above where it was 5 years ago, but it has not been the target of a take over. On the other hand, a couple more Internet adventures, Fox Family Deals, DCAs, and "Atlantis the lost empire"s and Disney may have a stock price of about $5. Then it would be taken over for sure.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "I see other Disney parks doing things in a similar fashion, and therefore DCA is no different and NOT a departure." Oh really. Tell me what other Dinsey park is set totally in the here and now? What other Disney park has an area themed to a cheap amusement park (don't say AK as that new dino area is also a stupid theme)? What other Disney park has factory tours and history of a state as attractions? What other Disney park has almost all the rides, almost exactly like Six Flags rides? What other Disney park has a hotel in the park, and was designed with "the view from the hotel" as a concern? What other Disney park has had to add attractions, replace all the shows, and add an entire new show infrastructure in the first year?
Originally Posted By driftwood714 What's the point of visiting a Disney theme park when they're all the same thing. They decided to make DCA in a different format from any other park. Just like Florida, all 4 parks are very different.
Originally Posted By reddon ¡§"The same thing can be said about these posts. No one forces you to participate in this thread, this discussion board or even visit this site. Post and let post." Actually, no it can't. In trying to have a pleasant conversation here, I've found it very difficult to do so without a "DCA Sucks" bomb tossed in. It's ok, though. And if you want a "post and let post" attitude, then I suggest you can start with letting me respond to some of these ridiculous comments that get floated about. Or does post and let post only apply to a certain set of beliefs? If people want to post how awful DCA is, I should be able to post how I'm sick of hearing it.¡¨ Did I say anything that will stop you from posting? Post whatever you want. But I do think saying things like ¡§If you don't like what they are selling, then stop being a customer. No one forces you to participate¡¨ is simply being dismissive. This is pretty much in the same line as ¡§There are more important things in life, why waste time on talking about theme parks¡¨. It¡¦s an easy and cheap shot and you can use it just about anywhere. Why stop here? Spread this ¡§simple truth¡¨ to all other fan sites, call up sports radio and tell all those rabid fans to stop whining and just don¡¦t go to the games anymore. No more controversy, just one big happy group hug for fans. This thread is about an article that talks about ¡§expected revenue harvest from California Adventure and Convention Center improvements never materialized.¡¨ Why should it be any surprise to find negative posts about DCA here? What ¡§pleasant conversation¡¨ are you talking about? You jump in at post 24 and start telling people to stop complaining. I don¡¦t call that pleasant conversation.
Originally Posted By jonvn ""How about if I say, "I think most will feel"," Say what you want. However, the idea that you think something means that the majority of other people think the same way is wrong. Some may think the way you do, many may not. "Ford's sales are oinly 3% above where it was 5 years ago, but it has not been the target of a take over." And how is Disney's stock compared to where it was five years ago, and it hasn't been the target of a take over, either. "Tell me what other Dinsey park is set totally in the here and now? " We've already had this conversation, I and a few others have told you this already. Apparently you did not pay attention, so unless you can explain to me why I should repeat what has already been said to you many times, I'm not going to bother. "Did I say anything that will stop you from posting? Post whatever you want. " Thank you. I shall. "This is pretty much in the same line as ¡§There are more important things in life, why waste time on talking about theme parks¡¨." First, what character set are you using? I'm getting strange characters in your post. To answer your point, there are lots of important things in the world. But there is also time to talk about fun stuff. But to get angry over something like this when there are other more important things to get angry over is, I feel, inappropriate. People die every day of curable disease, great injustices are done, criminals of every stripe strike terror in people. Those are things to be upset by. A theme park is a fun diversion. It's meant as escapism. If a person upset because a theme park isn't painted right with all this other stuff going on, then I think that person has their priorities out of adjustment. You may agree or not, but I would rather get mad about something worth getting mad about. "Why should it be any surprise to find negative posts about DCA here?" It's not a surprise. In fact, it's a sadly expected behavior. No thought or analysis goes into these comments. But that's fine. The only reason Anaheim did not do well this year is because DCA just didn't have a big E ticket attraction. Ignore millions laid off. That's perfectly reasonable. "You jump in at post 24 and start telling people to stop complaining. I don¡¦t call that pleasant conversation. " That's ok. You are telling me to do the same thing. I guess you don't want me to post anymore, I take it? Sit down and shut up, as someone recently said? Sorry. No.
Originally Posted By KanakiKid jonvn wrote: "If you don't like what they are selling, then stop being a customer. No one forces you to participate." You keep saying this over and over. I guess if this is Disney's current advertising strategy, it's a great success. Especially at WDW. "I think if people find stuff so unpleasant that they spend time doing little else but complain about the place, then there are many other things that someone can do to occupy their time that they will likely find more pleasant." Same goes for these discussion boards. Your posts seem to be getting more and more hostile in each of your many responses.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You keep saying this over and over. I guess if this is Disney's current advertising strategy, it's a great success. Especially at WDW." Yeah, I do. Funny, isn't it. You know, there are these things called newspapers. Has stuff in them called news. Current events of the day, sort of thing. Perhaps you ought to pick one up and read about what is going on in the world. WDW, along with the rest of the tourism industry, is having a bad time right now. I just received an offer in my email for a stay at the Las Vegas Hilton. $22.25 a night, including all kinds of freebies such as tickets to the Star Trek Show. It has nothing to do with Disney doing anything on their own. "Your posts seem to be getting more and more hostile in each of your many responses." "Same goes for these discussion boards." Yes. So, it'd be nice if my comments about them were taken heed of, and this board would be a nicer place to be at. Gee, so many people are so harshly critical of absolutely everything about DCA, yet when the table is turned ever so slightly, then none of them can handle it. There is no "hostility" here towards anyone. You're reading something into my comments that are not intended.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "And how is Disney's stock compared to where it was five years ago, and it hasn't been the target of a take over, either." In November of 1996, DIS was trading in a range of 23-25. I'm not impressed with the ROI I would have gotten had I invested then. >>"Tell me what other Dinsey park is set totally in the here and now? " "We've already had this conversation, I and a few others have told you this already. Apparently you did not pay attention, so unless you can explain to me why I should repeat what has already been said to you many times, I'm not going to bother." Please Jonvn, please help me. You say DCA isn't a departure, yet I'm not aware of any other Disney park set totally in the "here and now", nor a park with three factory tours as attractions, nor a park with an area themed to a cheap amusement area, nor a park with only a couple attractions significantly more magical than a typical Six Flags ride. I'm not aware of any other Disney parks that are so devoid of Disney magic. Please Mr. Jonvn, explain to me how any other Disney Park has had to totally scrap it's entire array of shows, add two new show infrastructures in the first year it was open. Please explain to me how DCA is not a deviation from other things Disney has done.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "And how is Disney's stock compared to where it was five years ago" In fact Jonvn, over the past 5 years, DIS has under performed DOW, NASDAQ, and S&P. <a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=DIS&DateRangeForm=1&PT=5&CP=1&C5=11&C6=1996&C7=11&C8=2001&C9=0&ComparisonsForm=1&CA=1&CB=1&CC=1&CE=0&CompSyms=&DisplayForm=1&D9=1&D0=1&D4=1&D7=&D6=&D3=0&ShowChtBt=Refresh" target="_blank">http://moneycentral.msn.com/in vestor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=DIS&DateRangeForm=1&PT=5&CP=1&C5=11&C6=1996&C7=11&C8=2001&C9=0&ComparisonsForm=1&CA=1&CB=1&CC=1&CE=0&CompSyms=&DisplayForm=1&D9=1&D0=1&D4=1&D7=&D6=&D3=0&ShowChtBt=Refresh</a>+Chart Yeah, they must be going in the right direction. I could only imagine how poor the stock would have performed if they'd stuck to what they do best.
Originally Posted By KanakiKid "There is no "hostility" here towards anyone. You're reading something into my comments that are not intended." I've read today's posts by you. LOL!!!
Originally Posted By jonvn "Please Jonvn, please help me." I don't think it's possible. I'm not sure you even read what is written to you. As I said, this conversation was had just a short time ago, with several people chiming in on the subject. As near as I can tell, you completely ignored everything that was being said to you, and simply kept repeating whatever mantra you had that day. "In fact Jonvn, over the past 5 years, DIS has under performed DOW, NASDAQ, and S&P." Again, you didn't follow the context of why this was said. Please read it over again.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I've read today's posts by you. LOL!!!" Shrug. They're not hostile, but you seem to be getting upset by them. Oh well. It's not my problem.
Originally Posted By AladdinAZ "Your posts seem to be getting more and more hostile in each of your many responses." "Same goes for these discussion boards." Yes. So, it'd be nice if my comments about them were taken heed of Good grief, Jonvn, the great instigator
Originally Posted By WrongWay >>"In fact Jonvn, over the past 5 years, DIS has under performed DOW, NASDAQ, and S&P." "Again, you didn't follow the context of why this was said. Please read it over again." Jonvn, I graduated form university with a 4.0 GPA. I'm not stupid, and I have been reading carefully. What you said was that by buying other companies, Disney has built the value of the comapny and prevent being bought out. I piont out, that in fact, the company has underperformed all three indexes over the last 5 years. I believe, that if the company had reinvested the cash generated by the parks and movies, back into parks and movies, higher dividends, and better programming for the channels it already owned and could have developed, the stock would be doing better. Instead, they've issued 100 million more shares, and net income has dropped from $2 billion profit in 1997 to a loss 150 million in the last FY. This isn't a single year drop due to the souring economy. It has been a steady drop in profit from 1997 until now. $2 billion, 1.85 billion, 1.3 billion, .9 billion, and now the 150 million loss. Please explain to me, Jonvn, how the company could be an aquisition target if it had invested in what it does best, and probably have out performed this miserable track record? It is my opinion that the company is NOW a take over target because it has some good parts that are being weighted down by so many of Eisner's follies. A company could buy Disney, sell off the good pieces(parks, studios, merchandise, character rights, movie rights), and let the rest die. DIS isn't in bad shape becuase of not enough aquisitions, in my opinion. In my opinion, it is in bad shape due to TOO many aquisitions. They flocked up. They aimed at the flock of possible business lines, instead of picking their targets and aiming for them.
Originally Posted By reddon First of all, sorry about the mess up on language setting on my part. It seemed to screw up the encoding when posting. "To answer your point, there are lots of important things in the world. But there is also time to talk about fun stuff. But to get angry over something like this when there are other more important things to get angry over is, I feel, inappropriate. People die every day of curable disease, great injustices are done, criminals of every stripe strike terror in people. Those are things to be upset by. A theme park is a fun diversion. It's meant as escapism. If a person upset because a theme park isn't painted right with all this other stuff going on, then I think that person has their priorities out of adjustment. You may agree or not, but I would rather get mad about something worth getting mad about." Personally, I don't ever get mad at Disney. But I will make a case for any fan that does, especially on these fan sites. Your argument all make sense, for the regular customers. Sure theme park is just for fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously. But in that case we won't see all these Disney fan sites. How many Six Flags sites are out there? Just because people sound upset or rabid on these boards does not necessarily mean they act the same in real life. And even if they do, I think it's hypocritical for anyone of us - active participants of a Disney message board, to make the judgement that their priorities are out of adjustment.
Originally Posted By tangaroa "What's funny is that some folks insist that there is only one reason for these numbers. For the last two years, the area has been a construction zone. This year, there's been a pretty harsh recession going on. But all that can be safely ignored, I guess." Pretty much. I've heard Disney blame their pour attendance on everything. Recession, Construction, Weather, El Nino, Jupiter's 5th moon not being aligned with Sagitarius. Yeah nevermind the fact that during this country's last recession Disneyland's attendance stayed strong. Maybe because they were adding new attractions... nah it's probably just a fluke. Nevermind that Tokyo Disneyland just went thru the SAME exact experience that Disneyland in Anaheim went thru. Recession couldn't even being to describe what happened to the Japanese economy, and on top of that they were in the process of building up their resort TOO... and guess what, attendance was just fine and dandy. In fact they even found the time to add a new attraction during that whole mess which turned out to be an instant success. How do you want to explain that away? Oh wait I know, The people in Japan are just more likely to go to theme parks during a recession... once again it's *our* fault, the American Consumer's fault, that Disney is underperforming right now... correct? "Gee, with six million people in the park, you'd think that someone was coming. I guess not." Ask the hotel owner's in Anaheim. I guess they would have a better idea. "And let's just ignore the fact that the entire country has suffered a severe economic setback this year. Let's ignore that tourism is down all across the country. It's all because DCA sucks, right?" If people WANTED to come, they would. They don't want to come. Whats you're excuse for the summer between the rain in February and the attack in September, when DCA's attendance was still in the gutter? Oh right, bad marketing and bad (and obviously unjustified) word of mouth. Or maybe the moon wasn't in the right phase? Is it really that impossible to think that it's because DCA is just that uninteresting to people, and Disneyland isn't worth the added price with no new attractions? Not to me it isn't. We're so desperate for new attractions at Disneyland, that we will line up (90 minutes strong) for a 30 year old dark ride with some christmas decorations... honestly that's how bad it is. "You're welcome, even though I am not telling you how you are supposed to think. Think any way you want." I think Disneyland's (and DCA's) attendance problems could be fixed by doing two things. Either adjust the price to reflect the current value of the experience (obviously lower) OR add new attractions. Neither of these will be done though, because Disney wants to hold on to as much money as they can. So until they decide to take a risk, the tail spin will continue. Attendance and Profits will keep getting lower, and investments in the park will continue to be cut. The parks will be sucked dry of every last cent until they can't bleed any more. At which point Eisner will retire with his 700 million dollar bonus, and leave the problem for whoever takes over. That's what I think.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Jonvn, I graduated form university with a 4.0 GPA." Was typing one of your classes? Which university, what major? I didn't say you were stupid. But it does seem that you are not reading what is being said. "What you said was that by buying other companies, Disney has built the value of the comapny and prevent being bought out." What you were responding to was a statement made in response to another person talking about the stock price of Ford. That Ford has not been a takeover target, yet their stock price is only 3% different than it ws five years ago. Disney's stock price as compared to what it was five years ago is not much of a different story. "It is my opinion that the company is NOW a take over target because it has some good parts that are being weighted down by so many of Eisner's follies. A company could buy Disney, sell off the good pieces(parks, studios, merchandise, character rights, movie rights), and let the rest die." That's always a possibility. It's what happened in the 80s, when the stock price of the company fell below book value. If someone thought they could make money doing that, they'd be doing it right now. Maybe they are. If you want Disney to be an independent company, then it has to diversify and grow. Otherwise, it becomes a niche player and will be gobbled up by another media giant like Viacom or AOL. That is precisely what has been happening in the entertainment industry for a decade now. Consolidation. It's eat or be eaten. Disney is the only entertainment company left that has not been bought up by someone else during this time. That is an amazing accomplishment. "Just because people sound upset or rabid on these boards does not necessarily mean they act the same in real life." I have no way of knowing that. I only go by what I read here. I read a lot of angry things by people. "I think it's hypocritical for anyone of us - active participants of a Disney message board, to make the judgement that their priorities are out of adjustment" Is it? I am not sure. Depends. This is supposed to be an enjoyable pastime. Perhaps some people use it to channel problems in other aspects of their lives towards a non-threatening activity. I don't know. I feel that in general, if you are going to be feeling upset over something as trivial as this stuff, then you're not getting the intended effect. It goes to the question of why people are involved in the first place. For many of those who are so very upset, I think they have lost sight of why they go to Disney parks, and what their purpose is. To me, if something is not serving its purpose, you don't go back. For example, if I watch a TV show, and I don't like it, then I stop watching that show. I don't keep watching it. I especially don't keep watching it and then go to a bulletin board about the show and talk about it endlessly. There is just too much else to do in life that is good to bother with something that is bad. There ARE other TV shows to watch. There ARE other things to do besides TV in the first place. There are books, there are movies, there are outdoor activities, and so on. Now, if it floats someone's boat to do something like that, though, fine. But if they do, it's not too surprising to get reactions such as this. Particularly in the case of a specific theme park. The behavior is just not reasonable to me, and I just do not understand it. Life is short. Spending it being involved in things you don't like is a horrific waste, especially if there is nothing you can do about it. There are things in life people hate, yet are being worked on. Conquering disease or stopping poverty, for example. These are heavy subjects, though. Sometimes people need a break. And for that, you have entertainment. The entertainment should be there to ease your life, and not be a source for further anxiety. That's how I see it. "I've heard Disney blame their pour attendance on everything. Recession, Construction, Weather, El Nino, Jupiter's 5th moon not being aligned with Sagitarius." And all of these things that they actually claim are pretty reasonable. It's not been a lucky time for them to open this park. "Yeah nevermind the fact that during this country's last recession Disneyland's attendance stayed strong." That's an interesting fact as presented in a vacuum like it has been. What happened to other tourist destinations at that time? What was the level of that recession? Attendance at locations all across the country are down. This is the sharpest drop off in the economy in over 40 years. Everything is connected. You don't take a single fragment of a fact and extrapolate causation from that alone. Well, you can, but it's not a very well formed hypothesis. "Nevermind that Tokyo Disneyland just went thru the SAME exact experience that Disneyland in Anaheim went thru. " Again, it's not about just Disney. Japan is a different country with a different culture. What you need to look at is how Disney is doing vis a vis the rest of the industry HERE. Contrast that with how it did vis a vis with the rest of the industry in the past, and in similar economic situations, and taking into account other competitive factors as well. "once again it's *our* fault, the American Consumer's fault," No one said it was any person's "fault" or the "American Consumer's fault." "Ask the hotel owner's in Anaheim. I guess they would have a better idea." Maybe you ought to talk to some of the hotel owners in Las Vegas, who are now begging to give away rooms for free that they were charging $200+ a night for 18 months ago. Maybe that would give you a better idea. "If people WANTED to come, they would. They don't want to come." If people wanted to come, and were afraid to spend the money, then they wouldn't come. Most people prioritize expensive vacations somewhere towards the bottom of the list. Food, clothing, shelter. These things are considered a bit more important to most people, I would think. If it becomes a choice between going on an expensive vacation, and saving the money in case of a lay off, I'd suspect that most would hold on to the cash. Just a wild guess on my part. "Whats you're excuse for the summer between the rain in February and the attack in September, when DCA's attendance was still in the gutter? " I'm not making excuses, but neither am I making wild accusations. First, attendance wasn't that bad. Millions of people have gone to this park. That's not the gutter. Second as has been mentioned several times here, the economy has really taken a bad down swing, with millions of people losing their jobs. You know, jobs? The things that give people their money? It's so bad that the Republicans are even talking about spending money to help stimulate the economy. But it doesn't just affect those immediately laid off. Other people who see that the times are getting bad are themselves, while still employed, going to be more reticent about spending money on an expensive vacation. This is not something I am making up here. This is what is happening. "Is it really that impossible to think that it's because DCA is just that uninteresting to people, and Disneyland isn't worth the added price with no new attractions?" No, it's not impossible. Just pretty unlikely, especially when the place first opened. No one knew what was in it, so they could not find it interesting or not interesting. This was bad marketing on Disney's part in not whipping people up into a frenzy to buy into the place. People will buy anything. People will eat anything. As long as it is packaged nicely and advertised properly. "Build it they will come" is absolutely not true. I could go out and build some great theme park in the middle of the desert, that everyone would absolutely love to pieces, but if I never told anyone about it properly, no one would bother going there, either. "We're so desperate for new attractions at Disneyland, that we will line up (90 minutes strong) for a 30 year old dark ride with some christmas decorations... honestly that's how bad it is." Desperate? I don't know. I thought the new Mansion thing was very entertaining and well done. They probably should put something big in Disneyland now, but considering that they just dumped a couple billion all around the park, it is understandable that they not spend inside the park at the same time. However, I do think they ought to put in a new big attraction. "Neither of these will be done though, because Disney wants to hold on to as much money as they can." Adding new attractions at the opening would not have made much of a difference. Adding them now, to make people come back might. Disney wanting to hold on to their money is no new thing. In fact, it's pretty funny about how this is brought up, as Disney historically has been very tight-fisted with their cash. Sure, Walt Disney's pet projects got a lot of funding, but everything else was watched like a hawk. Money was always in short supply, and they kept pretty close tabs on it. Really, that is how it has been in every company I've worked at. An exception to this was found in the dot com industry, where they spent and spent. Companies making no money setting themselves up with palatial offices and buying the staff all their meals. Well, they're all gone now. Bankrupt. You don't run a business for very long based on profligate spending. "So until they decide to take a risk, the tail spin will continue. Attendance and Profits will keep getting lower, and investments in the park will continue to be cut." A risk? You don't think that them spending a couple billion on making the park a resort a risk? They must love you at the craps table! And in any case, with the projects currently going on in DCA, they are spending over a hundred million or more on new construction. That sounds like a lot of investment to me. "Eisner will retire with his 700 million dollar bonus, and leave the problem for whoever takes over." You might want to consider that Eisner is probably no longer concerned with his personal wealth at this point, and that he has other reasons to keep employed. After a certain point, the money just doesn't mean as much. I realize that might sound a bit strange, but it's true. He knows he has all the money he'll ever need, and so will his children, and so will their children. You might want to consider that he probably wants to make sure his heritage at the company is a good one, that he is just doing the proper job, and that the right thing is done for the company he was hired in to manage. He could take his money right now and run, he already has enough. But he doesn't. The likelyhood is here that he isn't doing this striclty for the cash (at least not alone, I'm sure he's not an idiot, either), but for some other reasons as well. To say that his only motivation is money is being very simplistic, I feel.
Originally Posted By WrongWay >>"Jonvn, I graduated form university with a 4.0 GPA." >Was typing one of your classes? Which university, what major? Actually, no, spelling was not a class I had to take. I'm a poor typist, and a worse speller. I graduated from Hawaii Pacific University, in the 3 1/2 years I was stationed in Hawaii while in the Navy. I worked full time during the day, drove pizza weekends to support my family of 5, went to college on nights and weekend morning, and did homework whenever I could. I graduated with a Bachelor's of Computer Science, with a 4.0 GPA. I now work as a C++ and Java programmer. Anything else you want to know? "I didn't say you were stupid. But it does seem that you are not reading what is being said." "What you were responding to was a statement made in response to another person talking about the stock price of Ford. That Ford has not been a takeover target, yet their stock price is only 3% different than it ws five years ago." Now it must be you that is not reading clearly. It was me, and what I said was that Ford's SALES are only 3% above what they were 5 years ago. I've since double checked, and it is actualy an average of 3% increase in revenue(sales) per year, over the last 5 years. I pointed this out, because you stated the opinion (as if it were fact) that Disney wasn't bought out because of there aquisitions. I was giving a demonstration of a company without skyrocketing sales from aquisitions that was not bought out. "If you want Disney to be an independent company, then it has to diversify and grow." You wouldn't be stating opiniont as if it were fact, would you? A company can have good financials, strong dividends, and be a safe investment, and that will usually keep the stock value up. I think the problem with Disney in the early 1980s was that many of their projects were flops. The financials were in the toilet, and that, not lack of aquisitions, was what made the company a take over target. If Disney continues on the current negative slope of profit (well, loss), their stock price will continue to drop, and it will again be a take over target. What they are doing isn't working, and I think it is time to try something else. Instead of overpaying for new aquisitions, I think they should sell some off, and get back to what they do best, returning to profitability, raising the stock value, and keeping the company independent. I think the period of aquisitions you mentioned is over. the internet stock bubble has burst, so there aren't as many overpriced companies that will be buying up "right" priced companies. People are now more apt to ignore "revenue growth" and return to looking at profit/equity ratio. At this point, Disney's can't be calculated because they have loss, not profit. In my opinion, it is time to stop the business plan that got them the negative profit, and return to what had grown the profit to $2 billion a year by 1997. That is, I think they should be making good movies, investing in the parks to keep attendance strong, and doing things better than, rather than as cheap as, the competition. I think it is time to shed the unprofitable units, take a massive write off on things other than Internet, and get back to pleasing their fans, rather than missing the targets by aiming too wide.
Originally Posted By woody >>You might want to consider that Eisner is probably no longer concerned with his personal wealth at this point, and that he has other reasons to keep employed. >>he probably Or probably not. Is this a fact or opinion? This is complete speculation. I hope Eisner cares about his job and not inadvertently run Disney into the gutter. Eisner's compensation hasn't changed with the recession. It's easy to check. Use the web.
