Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iger speaks for Cast

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WDW1974
    replied
    <<To quote Shakespeare, "What's in a name?" Why should his last name count for anything? He is not Walt. He does not know what Walt would do. If you're going to use this logic, the person with the most say should be Diane Disney-Miller.>>

    What's in a name? Plenty. Roy's father and uncle formed the company and were responsible for making it one of the best known companies in the world -- and most loved. Roy himself worked for the company in films and televsion before becoming a board member and later the vice chairman of the company, and head of animation.

    He knows the inner workings of the company as much as anyone. Look, I know you have an unnatural attatchment to Michael Eisner. I do understand that. He was once a personal hero of mine and I've had the priv...the experience of meeting him on more than one occassion. That was then, after he (because of Roy Disney) along with Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenburg not only saved the company, but brought a moribound studios back from the dead in both animation and live action. But the last decade has been a constant push in the other direction. Disney, and Eisner, became pulled too thin. And quality went from being the primary motivation of anything with the Disney name to something far less.

    I don't think Roy Disney is perfect. I don't think he should be running Disney. I don't think he's a saint. But, yes, his name should count for a hell of a lot.

    As for Diane, she's never been a part of the company (not even a board member unlike her now-deceased sister Sharon). That was even when husband Ron was running Disney. Should her opinion matter? To some degree, absolutely. But she shouldn't simply have power handed to her. That's not what I'm advocating with Roy. He's earned it.

    <<If it weren't for the age limit, Roy would still be at the WDC not making a deal about anything. Roy only did anything because he lost his job.>>

    Sadly, this is something I am almost in agreement with you about. It does seem Roy and Stan only went public with their issues when they were about to be kicked off the board. I certainly would have more empathy for them if they had gone public 2-4 years sooner.

    <<Rasulo is one of the good guys. It was Pressler who was bad for the parks. Rasulo is doing good things (along with Oumiatt and Weiss).>>

    Well, I do think Rasulo 'gets it' to some degree when it comes to the parks. But I also have major issues with what's been going on at WDW in terms of quality, show and upkeep ... I think the jury is certainly out on him. And I believe Al Weiss's time has come and gone. WDW needs fresh blood in the executive suite. Quality has nosedived in the last decade with Weiss at the helm.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheDisneyInquisitor
    replied
    Even though Roy is the largest shareholder?
    Roy may be the largest Shareholder, but he doesn't hold a sizeable portion of the company. The various groups like CalPERS have the most influence. Roy should not have any more say than Joe Nobody with 1 share.
    Roy's name alone, forgetting all he's done for the company, should count for something.
    To quote Shakespeare, "What's in a name?" Why should his last name count for anything? He is not Walt. He does not know what Walt would do. If you're going to use this logic, the person with the most say should be Diane Disney-Miller.
    Iger had his chance as President/COO and did nothing.
    If you do believe that Michael Eisner is a micromanager, then he was kept under close watch during his presidency. We won't be able to fully know how well Iger does until the end of this year. Likewise, what did Roy do? He did not do a damn thing even though he says problems arose in '94. If he trully felt it was bad, he would have left then. Why did he leave in 2003? Because he was kicked out. If it weren't for the age limit, Roy would still be at the WDC not making a deal about anything. Roy only did anything because he lost his job.
    Jay Rasulo at WDP&R actually came from Strat Planning....
    Rasulo is one of the good guys. It was Pressler who was bad for the parks. Rasulo is doing good things (along with Oumiatt and Weiss).
    Good things?
    Yeah, like multi-hundred-million-dollar attractions, Extreme Makeover for Disneyland, Extreme Makeover for ABC (which has at least 5 bona fide hits & has the largest season-to-season audience growth for any major network in the coveted adult 18-49 demographic in at least 25 years), big movies (in the present and future), stock price up, and more things I can't think of right now.

    -Michael

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Eggz
    replied
    Originally posted by sir clinksalot
    My company just changed CEO's ... there was only 1 candidate period. This is not an unusual situation.
    Did your board CEO recived a 45% no confidence vote and your board Chairman 25%. Did your chairman say that there would be a thurough inteview process that would take 10 months and then not release the details to the stock holders?

    Originally posted by sir clinksalot
    There is no basis for this lawsuit. Just because they didn't interview outside candidates, just because Eisner was in on the interviews doesn't mean that you can just sue them.
    It seams that the Court of the state of Delaware disagees with you, as they have accepted the complaint. Did you read the complaint?

    The Board of Directors of the Walt Disney Company, George Mitchell, said that Eisner would not sit in on the interviews and then it turns out Eisner did. One of two things happened, either Eisner bullied Mitchell into being present for the interview which means Mitchell is not stong enough to represent the interests of the share holders, or Mitchell lied to the owners of the company. Are these acceptible practices for a publically owned company?

    Originally posted by sir clinksalot
    This lawsuit has no justification, it's frivolous and has no point other than to divert attention from the good things going on with the company right now.
    Good things? Like the lay off of people who have been with the company for 25 years?

    Originally posted by sir clinksalot
    I have also seen it quoted that the SaveDisney people don't think Iger is capable of doing the job. He hasn't even started yet, give the guy a chance.
    He was the President and COO for 5 years. He lied to the board of Directors about FOX family. He had his chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Eggz
    replied
    Originally posted by Cousin Orville
    Talk about humiliation, Bob Iger has been beaten up in the press by Eisner and everyone else mercilously as someone who is "a nice guy, but has no creative abilities".
    It would be my guess, if I was Mister Iger that I would now have a chance to refute these damning critiques and really make a name for myself beyond the shadow of Eisner. Decentralizing biz development decisions to the divisions is a big step and shows that he is not the micromanager that Michael was. That aloone shows strong leadership and telegraphs trust to all those heads, they will now be loyal to him as they are also accountable. I don't think Iger pertends to be someone he's not, and at the same time will really work hard to make a reputation for himself as a great leader at the company. It's show time for him and I'm hoping he does a great job. We'll have to see how he handles creative challenges. I do think the lawsuit is credible, just not sure what the result will do for the company.
    Most of this is true, and would be very re-assuring if we are talking about ABC, or Warner Brothers or Univeral or Standard Oil. But Disney is different. Iger has no interest, nor ever has had any interest in theme parks or animation. And those department heads he just gave power to...David Sainton at WDFA and Jay Rasulo at WDP&R actually came from Strat Planning. These are the guys who killed Animation and are currently killing WDI. These are the guys being handed more power.

    I'm sorry, I've been holding back until now, but I'm getting angry. You guys out there in fan world do not know how bad it is inside Disney. You just don't know. Read DisneyWar, go to SaveDisney, see Dream on Silly Dreamer. If you guys care about the parks, Bob Iger is not your guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Last edited by Mr. Eggz; 05-15-2005, 03:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cousin Orville
    replied
    Talk about humiliation, Bob Iger has been beaten up in the press by Eisner and everyone else mercilously as someone who is "a nice guy, but has no creative abilities".
    It would be my guess, if I was Mister Iger that I would now have a chance to refute these damning critiques and really make a name for myself beyond the shadow of Eisner. Decentralizing biz development decisions to the divisions is a big step and shows that he is not the micromanager that Michael was. That aloone shows strong leadership and telegraphs trust to all those heads, they will now be loyal to him as they are also accountable. I don't think Iger pertends to be someone he's not, and at the same time will really work hard to make a reputation for himself as a great leader at the company. It's show time for him and I'm hoping he does a great job. We'll have to see how he handles creative challenges. I do think the lawsuit is credible, just not sure what the result will do for the company.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Eggz
    replied
    The lawsuit was accepted by the court. Those of you who think the lawsuit is unjustified, I do suggest you read it. As you go through the exhibit items it becomes clear that this was the back-up plan all along (or as Kevin said, the "endgame"). Guys, Stan Gold is a business lawyer. He came from the same firm as Frank Wells (that is why Gold knew Wells could do the job back in '84). They provide evidence that is very compelling, if you read the complaint. These men are not stupid.

    Also, to those of you who say, "Give Iger a Chance." Well, I felt that way for a few weeks after the dissolving of the Stretigic Planning devision, but from where I sit, I think now that it was a lot of show-boating. Iger had his chance as President/COO and did nothing. I now know that that the choice of Iger was the choice to make ABC/ESPN the center of the company and the parks and animation will suffer. I also know that Roy and Stan's vantage point is better than mine, and they know things that we don't. Read the complaint very closely and you will see what I mean.

    As far as this being bad-timing. Yup, no doubt about that. And yes, there were many missed-opportunities. But no use crying over spilt milk.

    Leave a comment:


  • cellarhound
    replied
    Originally posted by sir clinksalot
    This lawsuit has no justification, it's frivolous and has no point other than to divert attention from the good things going on with the company right now.
    I think there are some merrit to the questions regarding Fox Family aqusition... I don't know if you can say the same about the actions of the board of directors... I think what they did was legal... That is why I am saying this really fires a shot across the bow, and the focus really needs to be at the next shareholders meeting. I think that is where Roy and Stan can have a greater impact.

    I think many shareholders feel they got blindsided by political PR campaigns by both sides... But we will wait and see...

    Leave a comment:


  • sir clinksalot
    replied
    My company just changed CEO's ... there was only 1 candidate period. This is not an unusual situation. There is no basis for this lawsuit. Just because they didn't interview outside candidates, just because Eisner was in on the interviews doesn't mean that you can just sue them.

    This lawsuit has no justification, it's frivolous and has no point other than to divert attention from the good things going on with the company right now.

    I have also seen it quoted that the SaveDisney people don't think Iger is capable of doing the job. He hasn't even started yet, give the guy a chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cousin Orville
    replied
    Originally posted by dshimel
    It isn't that they think him "unqualified".
    Uh.. yes they do. They have both gone on the record as to this fact. They have doubts about his creative abilities. I also agree with the rest of what you said.

    Leave a comment:


  • WDW1974
    replied
    I don't feel Roy is right on every issue, and he certainly deserves criticism for the fact he went quietly along with all the bad choices, and only went public when he was kicked off the board. That said, Roy is right about a heck of a lot more than he is wrong about. The rubberstamping of Iger being just one example.

    I just think at this point he's SOL. The time for action was March 2004, after the huge victory and groundswell of both public and Wal Street opinion. He waited. Then SaveDisney became more of a fan-type site than one seriously out to depose of Eisner, Iger, Mitchell and cronies. Whoever advised Roy and Stan on their strategy seems to know as much about media and big business as a trained chimp. Roy should have been front and center everywhere starting as soon as the meeting in Philly ended. Should have been seen at the parks talking with CMs and guests (and let's face it, there's not a person out there, including Eisner, with the balls to kick Roy DISNEY out of DL or WDW). He should have been out at premiere's. Should have been seen meeting people like Steve Jobs. He should have visited ABC HQ ... maybe even hang out at a couple of Disney Stores (with media following, natch) ... every one of those situations could have/should have been maximized for publicity damage because that would have forced positive change. Instead, Roy and Stan went silent and let their website become their voice (and it wasn't a pretty one, but a whining petty one) as Disney's fortunes improved in almost every aspect. The battle was lost. ABC is the hottest network right now in the demos advertisers covet, while NBC has fallen way back and CBS is vulnerable with shows like 'Raymond' on the way out. The Studios are doing well even if Pixar is a huge factor) and has two Pirates sequels on the way. They sold the Angels and lost less money on the Mighty Ducks because of the lockout than they would have if the NHL season had been played. ESPN 's growth is amazing and now they are getting Monday Night Football. Even consumer products is in much better shape because the Disney Stores have been dumped. And theme parks? Having their best year since 2000 and looking at a huge rest of 2005 with the Happiest Celeb and pent up demand. And Eisner gets to crown his Disney career by opening the Chinese market in September.

    The stock price? Double what it was a few years ago.

    Like I said, Roy and Stan had a chance ... a HUGE, GREAT, WONDERFUL one. They blew it. So now, it's time to wish Iger the best and hope he delivers.

    Leave a comment:


  • cellarhound
    replied
    There is also one other thing that really gets me about timing of press releases...

    Roy and Stan release a letter to the Board of Directors critizising them on the selection process and the evendence presented by DisneyWar regarding the Fox Family Aquisition...

    The exact day after they do so, Iger's selection goes public trumping the news... In political fashion...

    Really allowing SaveDisney no momentum to stur the public...

    Iger is still avoiding the questions regarding the aquisition of Fox Family... Because this is a legitimate question... I think the shareholders deserve an answer and stop giving us a lot of flak...

    Leave a comment:


  • cellarhound
    replied
    But the law suit will take years to litigate... There is no way the court could rule this quickly... (If I was defense attorney I would try to stall this action indefinately...)

    That is why I would suggest that the litigation is a "shot across the bow."

    Leave a comment:


  • dramaqueen
    replied
    From what I have been reading (see various postings in the news forum) this was a bad time to file this lawsuit. Disney's profits are way up and many people in the business/financial world think that Roy, et,al have nothing to complain about and should shut up and go away. It also looks bad that this comes right at a time when Disney has been its most visable and in the minds of America. Disney has not had this much publicity in a long time.

    That being said- I agree that we need to give Iger a chance, no one knows if he is going to be good or bad for business yet.

    I also think that money isn't everything and the favorable quarterly reports that have come out this week don't necessicarily mean anything- we have seen what happens when the company is solely focused on profits and this is not a good indicator of the companies health.

    IHO, I do not think Roy filed this lawsuit expecting the BoD to get thrown out by a judge- most speculate that this is impossible and a judge will most like throw out the lawsuit. They have to prove that they actually believed that the Board of Directors would keep thier word. The very fact that their campaign exists pretty much proves that they do not trust the Board and should not have expected them to keep thier word.

    However, I think it was done to call attention to the fact that they didn't really look as hard as they could have- most in the business world seem to have overlooked that. By calling attention to them, maybe it is just Roy's way of warning them that he is not going away and that the Guerrilla business tactics of the Eisner era will not be allowed to continue.

    I think Roy's greatest contribution to the company will be the legacy he leaves with the shareholders. Uncle Walt built the company for future generations and Roy hasn't forgotten that. The Save Disney campaign has impowered the shareholders and made them realize that they have a say in the future of the company and they can use their voice to effect change and shape that future. I daresay that Disney now has the most active and informed shareholders and the board realizes that mere profits will not appease them.

    Leave a comment:


  • dshimel
    replied
    Originally posted by cellarhound
    Board members get voted in every year, they don't have three year terms like most other boards...
    But, the board controlls who get on the board's ballot.

    That is the real point of this law suit I think. There was a court ruling last year that said in addition to the boards candidates, significant stockholders can submit their own slate of contenders.

    Roy wants to use this lawsuit to get the last election thrown out, a new election held with his own hand-chosen board members, then use the controversy to get his slate of henchmen elected.... thus taking back contol of the company from Eisner and his henchmen.

    Leave a comment:


  • cellarhound
    replied
    First off, I am not a CM, but I wanted to weigh in on this issue, however I think most people know where I stand on this big issue...

    Originally posted by dshimel
    It isn't that they think him "unqualified".
    I agree with you... It isn't that he is unqualified, rather Iger is a step in a direction that I think Roy does not want the company to go in...

    It heralds to the Content Creation verses Content Distribution...

    Iger comes from the ABC/Capcities line of management, which is in essence a Content Distributor... Roy has been working in Animation for years now, which is Content Creation...

    If you notice in the last couple of years, Eisner and now Iger has been refocusing the company away from areas where content is created except where it focuses on TV and Video... Most of the film creation including Animation is now being subcontracted.

    For Roy and those of us who have "grown up" on Disney know that the heart and soul of the company is the Animation Studio and the Theme Park... "It started with a Mouse"...

    But the ABC changed focus, there was an agressive movement now to make ESPN the heart and soul of the company... Because that is a vertual monopoly, where as children's programming is not a monopoly (Viacom's "Nick" channels.)

    ---- I digress ----

    As far as I can see from Iger's reaction... He did not address the content of the argument of the case really... How can he say that he is not partial to the boards actions if he himself sits on the board of directors? Of course he is going to vote for himself! Duh! He isn't an "independant director."

    You can't really say that Roy simply wants his people in the board seats, rather than he wants independant directors in the board seats.

    Board members get voted in every year, they don't have three year terms like most other boards...

    That is why I say the law suit is just a "shot across the bow" to see what kind of support Roy and Stan have, and then they will likely mount another proxy fight at the next annual meeting of investors.

    Leave a comment:


  • dshimel
    replied
    Originally posted by Cousin Orville
    they think he's unqualified for the job.
    It isn't that they think him "unqualified". They think him one of Eisner's lackies. This is a struggle for control of the company, and Iger becoming CEO, qualified or not, keeps the current old-boys-network in place. A board hand-picked by Eisner, elects a replacement CEO hand-picked by Eisner. It ensure the board they'll keep their positions, and ensures the other Eisner minions that it will be business as usual.

    What Roy wants is a major shake up, and in the confusion of back-office politics that would follow, to rise back to a position of control of the company. Get his own old-boys-network back in charge so that he is hand-selecting his own board and hand-selecting his own puppet CEO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cousin Orville
    replied
    Originally posted by WDW1974
    Roy's name alone, forgetting all he's done for the company, should count for something.

    And frankly, I dare anyone to say Disney actually did a real search for the next CEO with a straight face.
    I agree, it does not seem like they did their diligence. In any event, there are not many qualified candidates to consider either. The reality is that the company is bouncing back and cleaning up it's collective act so far. Bob Iger should be insulted by this lawsuit, not by it's accusation, but it's true meaning, they think he's unqualified for the job. I'm sure he'd like a chance to prove himself. I'm pleased so far. Roy and Stanley are attacking swords out and going for blood (see Avitar).

    As far as speaking for the cast, I'm sure every Disneylander, wether you're a Roy fan or not, knows all of this taints the magic. dirty laundry is just that and the stains are getting pretty indelible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Xharryb
    replied
    I would suggest that perhaps it depends on how you look at and interpret this statement. I'm sure that most employees (and fans like myself) are "just plain fed up with all this", if you take "this" to mean all the drama and turmoil surrounding the company. At this point, i'm sure there are plenty of people who would just as soon get on with life, under whatever leader that may be rather than continue to be unsure of what the future may hold for the company.

    I'll admit that i'm right there with everyone else singin' "nananana heyheyhey goodbye" to Michael Eisner. I'll admit that Roy makes a valid point in that the selection process was not what it should have been. But at this point, we don't know what Iger is going to be like yet. So far most of the changes he's made since the announcement have seemed to be steps in the right direction. So why stir up trouble again now? keep watching, ready to pounce the moment he screws up, but this lawsuit just seems a little silly to me. it's like asking for a do-over. "we don't like the fact the way this happenned so we want a do-over" They're just creating more distractions for him that might keep him from being able to do the job we'd all like to see done.

    Just seems like a select group of "cool kids" fightin in the sand box while everyone else just stands around getting "fed up" with all the drama. but that's just my own silly, rambling thoughts on the matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • sir clinksalot
    replied
    Just because you have a famous name doesn't mean what you say should be taken into consideration.

    Jane Fonda anybody???

    Not to say that Roy doesn't make some good points. I don't think Iger speaks for ALL WDC employees, but I'm sure not ALL agree with Roy either.

    There are always 2 sides to every story, and it seems in this case, and on this site you only see one side, Save Disney's side.

    Not that it's a bad thing, but it would be nice to see some conflicting views once in awhile.

    Leave a comment:


  • WDW1974
    replied
    Roy's name alone, forgetting all he's done for the company, should count for something.

    And frankly, I dare anyone to say Disney actually did a real serach for the next CEO with a straight face.

    Leave a comment:

Get Away Today Footer

Collapse
Working...
X