Originally Posted By leemac <<Arnold Palmer Golf management runs some of the best courses and clubs in the country.>> Since when? They don't manage any course that I know of that are on rotation for the USPGA, USGA or LPGA. PGA National was a top club once - it hosted the 1983 Ryder Cup but it hasn't kept up with the pace. I've played a number of Palmer courses and they are adequate at best.
Originally Posted By 3disneylocations Since when? They don't manage any course that I know of that are on rotation for the USPGA, USGA or LPGA. PGA National was a top club once - it hosted the 1983 Ryder Cup but it hasn't kept up with the pace.<<< They run PGA National Resort here in Palm Beach Gardens, which has won numerous awards over the years.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And Disney ended up buying the hotel... The trend of farming out of traditional Disney Company management functions is something entirely new.<< Don't know exactly what is meant by "traditional Disney Company management functions," but what is happening with these golf courses is more a return to the way Disney did things in the past, during "the good ol' days." Walt Disney Productions was founded as a company that made motion pictures. Walt Disney early on saw the value of bringing in outside companies to license the Disney characters for a variety of products and enterprises. Great importance was placed was placed on hiring the very best. When Disneyland opened, these strategic partnerships were leveraged to the hilt. The cream of American commerce and industry sponsored shops, shows and attractions. In many cases the companies also ran the venue with their own employees. The Disneyland Hotel was operated by outsiders. The restaurants in the park and at the hotel were run by experienced corporations. (Gourmet, managers of the official restaurants at the hotel was based in Beverly Hills.) Yes, Disney did manage a number of its own venues, especially in Florida. But it was not until the late 1980s that the model was severely modified. The new management team, headed up by Eisner and Wells, felt that Disney would maximize profits by taking over every aspect of the company. In short order, they dissolved long term business relationships with vendors, publishers, retailers and others, many of whom were icons of American commerce. (This was also around the time that they sought out "international" sponsors like Nestle and phased out "provincial" companies like Carnation.) And it was, initially, a fabulously profitable strategy. The recipe was simple: end the contract, hire a team to run things "the Disney way," synergize the new product, and watch the profits roll in. The Disney Store retail chain sold the newly minted Disney products. The Disney Channel promoted them. All those shops in Disney World and Disneyland that sold stuff like Pendleton Wool were replaced with far more popular shops selling Disney plush and pins. But eventually, all those new divisions started having trouble maintaining their massive profit margins. Overhead costs, which had always been handled by others, ate into profits whenever sales fluctuated. When a fickle public didn't jump at Disney's latest offering, the cost had to be entirely absorbed by the Walt Disney Company. And the unbridled growth of the optimistic 90s resulted in a very large company that was somewhat unwieldy in a more difficult economy. Handing over the management of a couple of golf courses at Walt Disney World isn't some new thing. It's a return to the way things used to be, when risks and profit were spread around a bit more.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I also wonder where the money will come from which will now have to be profits for two companies instead of one... It's either going to be cost savings - like the employee's you mentioned - or a price increase.<< These are not the only two options. The deal is probably based on the current level of profitability. Palmer doubtless believes they can maximize their profit, while meeting their obligation to Disney. As others here have pointed out, there are ways this can be done. Just attracting a new client base would automatically enhance profit, without detracting from the experience or cutting current pay levels for employees. (Not to say that any of these are off the table, though.)
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Palmer doubtless believes they can maximize their profit, while meeting their obligation to Disney.>> Who knows what the Palmer Groups primary objective is here. For all anyone knows it could be to lure Disney golfers over to Palmer Group owned golf courses and ultimately sell those individuals high priced time shares around the world. What is blantantly obvious is that your typical WDW golfer isn't going to be paying Pebble Beach pricing to play a round of golf in 100 degree heat and humidity.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Who knows what the Palmer Groups primary objective is here.<< Their primary objective here, as everywhere, is to make money. The scenario described above is, frankly, convoluted and borders on ludicrous. I understand the annoyance with the way the Walt Disney Company seems to be all about making deals, rather than creating great original content. But don't blame the business people for doing their jobs, especially when it looks like something that may actually be doing some good.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Yes, Disney did manage a number of its own venues, especially in Florida. But it was not until the late 1980s that the model was severely modified.>> I'm not going to concede here and say that the Disney Company regardless of Burbank, Anaheim, Orlando or anywhere else in the world stuck to theme parks and animation. That's rubish! The Disney Company learned the art of hospitality and expanded! Now there are Disney parks in various locals around the world. Sure, Disney wasn't the best at doing hospitality, but they learned as how to become pretty good at it. My point is that I'm seeing a growing trend of Disney farming out typical and traditional management functions, running restaurants and now golf courses. Meanwhile building and maintaining things well outside the scope of anything Walt, Eisner or anyone else in the Disney organization ever dreamed of; time shares and cruise ships. If your agruement is; farm it out so someone can run it more profitably and better then what the heck is the Disney Company doing in the cruise ship business or running time shares/ condos? It's not as if the Disney Company is the premier cruise ship service in the world! The same goes for the Disney DVCs. Yet, I don't see the Disney Company abandoning those endeavors! It's pretty unfortunate when the Disney Company is more intrested in building ships and selling condos that they are actually improving the flagship property to their empire. Cutting back transportation service; ie monorail hours, leaving abandonded building, bulldozing down others and leasing out your restaurants to Lowrys in DTD, while opening more DVC and Disney Cruise line stands may be sending the wrong message to quests that the Disney Company isn't exactly intrested in improving the "guest" experience on WDW property. And I have no idea why after over one hundred posts you folks are so obsessed with the fact it's the Arnold Palmer Group who will be running the golf courses. I don't care if it is Arnold Palmer or Emerson, Lake and Palmer running the golf courses. The point is after 40 years of management Disney is farming them out.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom What management course at the Disney Institute intructs you that it's better to farm out basic hospitality functions on your flagship property ie; management of golf courses, and rudimentary restaurants while maintaining cruise ships, Bahamian/ Hawaiian Island resorts and condo construction?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I'm not going to concede here...<< Noted. You will not concede to facts.
Originally Posted By CDF1 "Palmer isn't a great course designer - there are a host of far better designers out there. His name has a cache and they don't have anything in central Florida." Completely untrue - Palmer's courses are on a par with those of the Trent Jones family, Tom Fazio, Nicklaus, Weiskopf/Moorish or any of the new wave of architects like Kidd or Hurzden. In particular, Palmer's design group worked with the Audubon Society on a number of courses to make those courses environmentally friendly. The Palmer name is one of the most respected names in golf course design amongst those who play and know the game.
Originally Posted By leemac <<The Palmer name is one of the most respected names in golf course design amongst those who play and know the game. >> This scratch golfer says otherwise - I can happily name dozens of better golf course designers. Palmer is way down the list even of former players. Ed Seay was the real brains behind the operation until he died. One area that Palmer Design goes a better job IMHO is on existing course modifications. However their built from scratch courses are thoroughly average.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom >>I'm not going to concede here...<< <Noted. You will not concede to facts.> Doug I have no idea why you continually refuse to acknowledge the information bellow that has been stated multiple times in this thread. <This transaction is yet another example of the risk-adversive investment strategy that WDW Co. prefers these days. Shift the costs over to another entity and let them work to earn their cut and fill the WDW coffers too.> The fact is the Disney Company has in place a risk-adversive investment strategy.
Originally Posted By CDF1 "This scratch golfer says otherwise - I can happily name dozens of better golf course designers. Palmer is way down the list even of former players." Plese feel free to regail us with your list of the top architects as you see them. But remember that most of the people who play recreationally are not scratch players and will not care about playing some track with a 135 slope rating since they can't break 90 on a course with a 110 slope. I've played arond the world and Palmer (with our without Seay) has designed courses which are usually playable for the average player and good player alike - not like a good number of courses by Jack or the Dyes that are impossible except for the single-digit player or those designs by the likes of David McClay Kidd or Michael Hurzden or Donald Steel which are part of expensive resorts or ultra-private clubs where a single day of golf costs you $500 a day (if you can even get on the course).
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I don't think Disney brought in Palmer to design courses at WDW. Here is my concern. It really doesn't have anything to do with Palmer or the golf courses per se. What my concern is everytime Disney takes a baby step towards farming something out it makes me think what is next. To me it starts with things you don't see, things that are behind the scenes. Then it moves to the small things in guest areas. Eventually it moves to be big things. I think every time you farm something out you dilute the Disney brand a little. There was a long discussion here a few months back about Disney selling the parks. Many here were concerned that Disney would sell them to another company or a multi-billionaire. It just me that instead they will sell bits and pieces of it to many different companies. Is it possible that we will see a day where Disney only runs the theme parks but farms out the hotels, transportation, food and sports to other groups? I worked for Disney when the company changed it's policy from promoting from within to bringing in people from other companies or MBA's. On one level it made sense business wise. New people, new ideas. The result ended up being a Main Street that looks like a mall, people who felt that maintenance and cleanliness were not as important as we had been taught and that guest service could sometimes be sacrificed for saving money. When you turn things over to another company you run the risk that their loyalties are with the other company. At Disney when things are outsourced the employees of that company do not get the same benefits as Disney CM's do. I remember an outsourced employee telling me that they didn't receive the same Main Gate privileges as the CM's working around them. Things like that affect moral and can affect how people view their jobs. I have been around Disney a long time and I have seen many changes over the years, some good and some bad. I have seen the company take tiny steps towards something that looked insignificant at the time to only see the huge ramifications it had later down the road. That is why I am cautious about moves like this.
Originally Posted By CDF1 I do believe it has been rumored that Palmer and his design team will do a reworking of the Palm course. WDW does host a PGA tournament every year and the two Joe Lee courses simply are not up to PGA tour standards in terms of condition or length. I wouldn't expect that WDW is figuring on hosting anything but a regular tour event but they are probably interested in at least an updated course which might draw a bigger and better field every year. They do have a fine Fazio course in Osprey Ridge and mercifully they plowed up Pete Dye's repetitive Eagle Pines layout.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Doug I have no idea why you continually refuse to acknowledge the information bellow that has been stated multiple times in this thread....<< Where have I refused to acknowledge this? What I have been doing is pointing out that much of the hand wringing here is misplaced. >>The fact is the Disney Company has in place a risk-adversive investment strategy.<< And this is a bad thing... why? (Freudian slip? "...the information bellow...")
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<(Freudian slip? "...the information bellow...")>> Not at all. I merely quoted Leemac and didn't want to take credit for his concise quote. He said the crux of my arguement far better than I did. I just ask that you please do not interpret my post to be something it is not. My only point is that I see a growing trend by the Disney Company of an (again using Leemac's words) risk-adversive investment strategy.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Your welcome to view the Disney Company's actions as anything you want. I just think it would be a little curtious that when others say they see a growing trend at WDW toward something they are not exactly comfortable with you could at least acknowledge the possibility that what others are seeing could in fact be actually going on.
