News just out - suit filed by Disney and Gold re:election of directors and disclosure

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Now that we're done discussing the thread itself.....

It is SO HARD to get mad at Disney right now. I'm so easily swayed by good show, it's pathetic.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

It is SO HARD to get mad at Disney right now. I'm so easily swayed by good show, it's pathetic.

But in general, isn't that what it's about? Good show? I remember when I first started going to MP (several years ago looking for info on the Grand Californian) the general complaints were the condition of the park, underwhelming DCA, new Tomorrowland, lack of originality, lack of investment, etc. If these things are being fixed - and it certainly seems like they are - then doesn't that alleviate most of the reasons for complaints?

Matt O seems to know what to do and how to get it done. The conditions for the 50th are (from what I've heard ) incredible. Tomorrowland is getting resolved. New rides, though not all original, are going in and investment is assuredly being made, with even more planned for the former motorboat cruise area. I would guess that DCA will get more and more investment as issues at DL are resolved. Monsters Inc represents investment, and they have to invest more to get people there, as they can't afford to let it die.

Now, it could be that Disney and Gold are forcing these things to happen due to their actions and Eisner and Mitchell and Iger are allowing and encouraging investment to sort of defer the criticisms of Disney and Gold. It could be that all the investment and improvement stops once Disney and Gold go away or this is entirely resolved. Who knows. But with all that's going in to the park(s) at present, it seems like fevered support for Disney and Gold must be hard to generate.

And wendybeth, thanks for the billing. I feel appeased.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm still of the opinion that Roy is just continuing to blow hot air. First he doesn't even bother to present a CEO candidate before the deadline, then he sues them for not doing a good fait search? I just don't get the strategy. A suit against a company board is a nearly impossible thing to win, and his actions (or inaction) make it even harder, from where I'm sitting. I mean, if he were really so concerned about them doing a good faith search, wouldn't he have used any opportunity he had to facilitate that search? And yet he just let the chance slip by with nary a peep.

Sorry, but Roy and Stan have been all talk, no action. And this long-shot of a law suit after Iger's already been chosen is too little, too late.

[mousepod]

I'm with GD on this one. As the resident Disney geek in my circle of friends, I've been sucked into many conversations about SaveDisney. Generally, most of them start with "So what's wrong with Eisner? He turned Disney around."

As an ex-New Yorker, I can't help but feel about Mikey the way I felt about Ed Koch. For you left-coasters who don't know NYC politics (why should you?) - Ed was the most popular mayor that I'd ever witnessed. He took a city that was in financial dire straits and on the ropes in reputation and turned it around. When he ran for re-election, he was endorsed by both the Democrats and Republicans. Then in his last term, something happened. Many say that he lost touch with the people and that he started making decisions based on cronyism and special interest groups. Racial tension mounted and things started to go out of control so the good citizens of Gotham voted in a replacement who appeased the obvious troubles but turned out to be pretty darn ineffectual (to the point that this here liberal even voted for Rudy).

It's clear that Eisner has made many decisions that hurt the creative side of Disney - the things that most of us feel make Disney Disney. But other than making good press, Roy and Co. have done very little to make any serious changes. Considering the incredible positive atteention that Disney is currently getting, with DL's 50th and ABC kicking Nielsen butt, this lawsuit is an example of pretty unfortunate timing.

I'm starting to think that the next true Disney visionary leader isn't going to come from either camp.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

First he doesn't even bother to present a CEO candidate before the deadline, then he sues them for not doing a good fait search?

I'm not sure how all this corporate stuff works - was it his responsibility to present a CEO candidate?

Here's what I think - I think Disney and Gold realized the fix was in and that they could do nothing to stop Iger from becoming CEO. This being the case, they specifically opted NOT to offer up any candidates so that a suit could be filed. If they offer up a candidate or two, and those candidates are considered and rejected, an air of sour grapes comes in to the mix. Right now they have an argument - though perhaps a weak one - that no candidate other than Iger was considered.

They saw the writing on the wall - nothing they could do could stop Iger from getting the job. So they planned a suit long ago to try to combat it on the only grounds they could.

[wendybeth]

What he said. (Scaeagles)


None of us can pretend to know what goes on behind the scenes, and second guessing either camp is largely just an excercise in frustration. But here goes:

I think that Eisner used Iger to outmaneuver Roy and Stan. First, he pretended to support an earnest search for a new candidate, and timed his resignation to allow for a search after the shareholder's meeting. That way, a new slate nomination by Roy and Stan would be seen as devisive and unnecessary, and reflect poorly on them. There was never any serious candidate for the position besides Iger, something Eisner ensured by threatening to sit in on the process, etc. Iger is Eisner's way to remain in the company, so long as Iger remains loyal....

Roy and Stan knew all of this, of course, and so elected to sit back and feign watchful waiting. Knowing that Eisner's ego is so overblown he would become sloppy, they simply waited for him to give them a chance to get this into court. And he did. The 'search' was a huge joke, and widely reported as such. If a judge approves this to go forward, then Roy and Stan can subpeona records, memo's, individuals (such as Meg Whitman) and the like. Eisner does not want this to get to court, and neither does Iger.

Read back on some of the SaveDisney letters from Roy- he knew what was up. And remember who let the parks slide to such a state, in a time of economic plenty, no less. (The majority of the 'slide' was occuring well before 9/11). I'm glad they fixed things up, but I do not trust them to maintain it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Responsibility? No. But it was their one final opportunity to make a change. It was the one thing that Roy did 20 years ago with Eisner. He didn't just walk out of the room huffing and puffing. He had a plan, and he had an alternate slate of candidates that included Eisner. That's what made that revoluation successful. This time? He's got nothing.

And I think you're right, I think that's exactly what he did. At the time that he didn't offer a candidate, there was much hinting that "something" was in the works. Well, if this is it, that's pathetic. And any judge with half a brain will take a look at it and see that Roy clearly avoided presenting a candidate in order to trump up these charges. Really pathetic, totally transparent, and likely completely ineffectual. He's run out of ideas and is grasping at straws.

[flippyshark]

I'm afraid I also find it unlikely that this gambit from Roy and Stanley is going to accomplish anything. However, from the bitter East-Coast perspective, I don't have the same good show to be swayed by. (I'm very jealous of you West-Coasters and wish I could be there.) WDW may not have fallen as far, but it hasn't rebounded any yet, either.

The most dispiriting factor here in Florida has nothing to do with fresh paint or new stuff. The real problem is a culture issue. I know that when I started in 1989, the vibe here was amazingly different. Cast members felt like they were part of a large but still personable family. When the higher-ups would tell us that we were an essential part of the magic, we half believed that they meant it. (They don't even give that idea lip service anymore!) These days, we mostly feel like warm bodies toward whom the big machine is completely indifferent. There are certainly plenty of good people around trying to keep the classic Disney groove going, but they are mostly self-motivated individuals, doing so out of personal comittment, unsupported by management.

We don't have a Matt Ouimet out here. (We didn't have a Cynthia Harris either. We did have Pressler.) We need visionary leadership, not just at WDW but throughout the company. (Like, y'know, animation.) Matt is kicking butt today, but he could be promoted tomorrow and replaced with a pinhead.

Last week, our local ABC nightly news ran a fairly harsh segment about WDW. They had cast members and guests on camera (in the park, no less) talking about the slide in quality, ever-rising prices and diminishing attractions, and the impossibility of workers making a livable wage. Bob Iger was seen responding to these issues. He said, and I am quoting from memory but this is very close, "That's just part of running a business. But I plan to restore some of the good will."

Some? Sheesh.

Anyway, I am truly thrilled to hear the good news from y'all's corner of the world and I hope it really is the start of something bigger and better for everyone. (And I sure hope all those Tomorrowland rumours turn out to be true!) Forgive me if my optimism is tempered with dread.

Save a corn dog for me.
Flippyshark

[€uroMeinke]

Sometimes I wish the Company would drop the Disney name.

As more time passes and we lose the animators, imagineers, and other creatives that made the Company what it was it seems the name is all that's left. The exciting and creative stuff is being done elsewhere now, by other companies and groups of talent. Disney is a corporate media company that bares little resemblance to the Company(ies) Walt built. It would be nice to properly mourn the loss, but we can't as long as the company carries the Disney name - maybe if Roy could just reclaim that..

Then again, I'm very happy with the 50th and am enjoying the moment. Will it last? Nobody really knows - hard to say what the new CEO will do - but in the meantime, I'll enjoy the park and the nostagia - and maybe take a peak at what Pixar is up to...