Has anyone else heard this re: Eisner|?

[airlarry!]

Yes, but you are missing the point. Roy did not come in and take over the company. He brought in Ei$ner (simplying the story here for our purposes). Who is to say that DDM would actually try and run the company? Instead she may pull a coup and bring in someone who could run the company with her father's vision.

 

[JudySue]

Well, this seems to mesh with what I've been hearing this past year about Roy Disney popping up at various WDW venus, talking to CM's, showing up at managers meeting unanounced (once voicing his opinion of managers who were absent). As he once said "it's still Disney on my drivers license". True, he was the one that brought Wells and Eisner on board when the company was just about to go under in 1984, and also true that he also ownes a castle in Irland that he wants to retire to. But, most importantly, he does care for the company, very, very much and no doubt is troubled by the current sutituation. I have also heard that it was Lillian Disney who really cared for Eisney - and with her gone .....

Roy wasn't the CEO, it's Diane's husband that had that position, but he does own a whole lot of stock, and he's sharp, and he's a Disney.

I see this rumor as very good news and am keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[Captain Crook]

JudySue, you're not saying Ron Miller (the guy who almost lead Disney into bankruptcy) was sharp, are you?

And Larry, I do understand the specifics, I'm no idiot (although I must sound like one based on your assumption)...But wht makes you think an old grandma lady with virtually no real life work exprience can put together anything more than a team of suck-ups & gold-diggers? The Disney name? Come on, just look at the history of businesses that fail based on the leadership of second or third generations of the same name...

 

[LOVETHATMOUSE]

Hey Captain - Why is it that you sound so angry in every response in this thread? People are just voicing their opinions, and you seem to be slamming everything they are saying. If you know so much, then what do you think is the fate of Disney, Eisner, Roy, etc? Would love to hear your take on the whole thing.

Oh, and even if there is a history of failure in 2nd and 3rd generation businesses, that doesn't mean they ALL fail. There are exceptions to the rules, and it seems to me Walt Disney was the perfect example of this. Everyone thought he was nuts to do what he wanted, yet look at the results of his dreams. It doesn't hurt to go for your dreams, who knows, you might make it there!

If powers that be are not happy with the way things are going with Eisner, then give him the boot. I, for one, would be very happy. I guess I have a different take on the whole situation because I am a CM and have personally seen how the company has gone downhill. Enough said.

 

[Captain Crook]

If you were at all familiar with the Rumor Board you would know that I, more than almost anybody here, am very easy going, light-hearted & full of humor (oft misunderstood). Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge others. I too, am sharing my opinion - that Ron Miller was a big time idiot. So sorry that this doesn't conform to your thoughts but we do like to have conversations and debates on this board...We are not meerly an "I agree with you" little group. As to my opinions, they are extremely well noted here on the DIS, just do a search, if you're really interested.

I apologized for my wording once before and won't do it again. Either realize that the written word often comes off different than it was intended & knowing my history of fairplay, move on...Or don't respond to my posts.

Oh, and as for being a CM, well that's grand. We love CM's around here and hold their opinions in high regard...But it doesn't make your opinion in general any more relevent than anyone elses.

I apologize to my fellow Rumors Board members for responding to this item here, but the criticism came here (not in a PM where it should have been).

 

[roymccoy]

With Disney's stock so low and with the executives "backs to the wall" with the Board and with the shareholders, I see a takeover from another media or entertainment company as the most probable scenario. Bigger companies than Disney are bought by other companies on a pretty regular basis in this country. Disney is worth a lot, but it is not worth so much that it is out of the reach of a few heavy hitters. I KNOW that Disney would be a very attractive piece of property to companies in the business. It's got great name recognition, great library of films, great theme parks, great movie and TV positions and a great following of loyal customers. It is also at a low right now, both in it's stock price and it's management. It is a perfect time for a takeover.

Roy

P.S. All of this would be a moot point, if Eisney and company can turn it around soon...

 

[Another Voice]

No one has ever said that Diane Disney wishes to run the company. It’s that she wishes someone with business and creative skills were running the business. Michael Eisner lacks both of those, and now that he’s driven away all the people with true talent, his weakness is all to apparent. It’s extremely insightful that the man felt he had to fly a business reporter to Florida, wow him with a deluxe room, drown him in free booze closed park parties, and then brag about what a great CEO he was – and don’t you like the side chairs I picked out for the lobby?

Captain, my opinion of Ron Miller is probably very close to yours. And I would not look forward to his return (but Diane is too smart for that anyway). However, the company was never near bankruptcy. It’s independence was threatened and it almost lost, but it wasn’t a case of financial collapse. In fact the problems were caused because the parts that made up Disney were each very valuable, but the total value of the company was being depressed through a lack of corporate leadership.

And even you must admit the situation today is very close to what existed back then. Stagnant stock price, declining revenues, failed projects, demoralized staff, lack of creditability in the industry. And the only difference between the old “Campus Comedies” with Kurt Russell and Disney’s current string of gross-out comedies (‘Scary Movie 2’, ‘Out Cold’, ‘Sorority Boys’) is that you have to show proof of age these days to get into a Disney movie. You decry “bathroom humor” yet comfortably over look the drugs, sex and bodily functions when it’s a Disney movie. Say what you will about the ancient régime, but they upheld their standards at a time when it was much more difficult.

Trashing all things related to Walt to make Eisner look better is interesting in a clinical way, but it’s not useful. Blasting a “silver spoon” upbringing is actually rather funny, you want to hear stories about Michael Eisner’s Fifth Avenue childhood on Manhattan? All the dirt from the past won’t make today’s movie popular. Barbs thrown at the character of a man now long dead will not make more people go to California Adventure. Name calling will not put shoppers back in the Disney Stores.

Michael Eisner is nothing more than a hired hand. No one is demanding the return of Walt (well, maybe those few conspiracy nuts and their stories about the freezer behind Main Street). But there are plenty of talented and capable people in Hollywood that will be able to replace Mr. Eisner in a second. The stockholders will approve, the public will approve, Diane will approve, and the employees will be ecstatic.

With luck, Mike will be available to pick out furniture for the Captain’s lair in the very near future.

 

[airlarry!]

Now, Baron, the above post by AV expresses the exact sentiments about the company that I think you and I share. I would jump from my car#3 spot in a heartbeat if I felt that there was someone up on top that had vision like Walt. Someone who wasn't just interested in making money for the shareholders by regurgitating inane sequels.

I believe that there is someone or some people who could fill Walt's shoes. Not, mind you, BE Walt reincarnated. Besides, Walt wasn't perfect. The object of this game is to find the person who can run the company in a manner that upholds the Disney name and keeps the institutional investors happy.

There are companies out there who do this every day. Why not Disney?

 

[YoHo]

Personally, as we've talked about before over the past year, I don't see outside takeover as viable in the current climate. I have an interesting question though for AV or anyone else that might care to speculate. Should Diane Attempt something like we are discussing, where would our Yacht loving Cousin vote? I mean, Things like this tend to create strange bedfellows, even cousins that don't see eye to eye.

The impression I'm getting is that Roy doesn't really care about his head of Animation Job and despite his public approval of Mike, I can't imagine that he really cares all that much.


Interesting Rumours. I can only pray we here more.

(I'm sorry Captain, I'm usually at least marginally on your side when it comes to Eisner, but my last trip through the Disney Store has me manning the launching mechanism of the corporate Catapult right next to Landbaron and AV.
Don't frett though, I'm just as likely to change my mood after the honeymoon.

 

[JudySue]

Captain Crook, Ron Millier was as problem - sorry if I sounded otherwise. Roy Disney took care of the problem. Wells and Eisner were brought in, and in worked - as long as it was WELLS and Eisner. With Frank Wells death, things started to go downhill, slowly as first and it took a while to get to where it is today. I ment to say that Roy Disney is sharp and he is a Disney.

Roy Disney wanted to retire years ago, but before there's a takeover I think he would try to save the company.

 

[Captain Crook]

OK JudySue, thanks for clearing that up! I can buy most of what yu've said - Except that some of us don't see the decline in quite the same light. I just don't buy that "Disney" name thing. Walt was the main guy that got the ball rolling, a Disney son-in-law nearly killed it (my apologies to AV, etal, for exageratng) & Roy was instrumnetal in bringing in Eisner (& supporting him). I don't see Diane as having the business saavy to bring the necessary change to the Company and what do we know about her really? It coud easily be all about ego & power i(n her later years), as well. As to my allusions of wealth ("silver spoon") AV, I realize Eisner comes from great wealth, as well, but he HAS paid his dues in the business/entertainment field...He's not just a relative of a famous person.

As to the "takeover" business...I'll reiterate my view. At this time that notion is non-sense. While it is true there are Companies out there big enough to gobble the Mouse, there are two very important factors to consider. (1) Why would they do it? Vivendi did it (ostensibly for greater entry to America - but they are NOT thrilled with this arm of the business & they are forced to contine expnding to keep up). (2) Disney will struggle, kick, bite, scream & make any takeover very, very difficult as long as Michael Eisner is in charge. Michael Eisner has enough Disney money, he WANTS a Disney legacy. To overthorow the Eisner Board & team would give tacit approval for any corporate raider to make their move, IMO. Of course, I don't know who they'd bring in to replace Mike, but short of the now retired Jack Welch, I can think of no one I'd want to see.

 

[DisDuck]

Ah, the captain's last sentence is the 'heart' of the matter. A question I posed over a year ago but with no real answer from our esteemed group. Just a general anyone would be better than Eisner. Something I cannot agree with. Eisner has stumbled this last year or so but that happens to the best of them from time to time. Remember even Walt had his down years.

 

[YoHo]

Mr. Duck, Normally I agree with you, but at this point in time, I'm starting to move over to the other side. I'm starting to feel like anyone could do better. At least in the short term and I think we can agree that there is little long term thinking going on right now anyway.

Personally, I would bet there are plenty of execs out there that could do a better Job and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if people like Disney-Miller know who they are. Not being in the industry, I couldn't begin to guess.

 

[Another Voice]

At the time that Roy Disney organized the palace coup, he had very, very little business background himself. The reason he had a holding company (Shamrock) was really only because all that trust fund money had to go somewhere. The "biggest" company it owned was L.A. Gear and his youthful “give the relative a job” days of running around with a 16mm camera filming squirrels wasn’t really much of a background in Hollywood either.

Even Michael Eisner himself was just a middle level suit in Hollywood, one of the many, many servants of Barry Diller (Mr. Duck, if you want a big name there’s this one). His only real claim to fame was being in the meeting that approved ‘Falshdance’ and being the one assigned to hold Jeffrey Katzenberg’s leash. He also wasn’t the first one that Disney, Gold and Wells asked – he was just the first one that said yes (Disney’s reputation at the time wasn’t strong enough to interest many).

Diane Disney is in the same position as Roy was, and with the same skills and weaknesses. The era of the superstar CEO is over and the question is not “who” can run the company, it’s more “who will manage the people that actually run the companies”. All attempts at the one-guy-does-it-all management has been a disaster, especially in Hollywood. Jack Welsh, despite the vast holdings of General Electric, never wrote the jokes for ‘Friends’, never field striped the engine on a 767, never published a paper on nuclear fission containment, and never reviewed the list of who got gold cards or not. That’s why Michael Einser’s boasting about rewriting scripts, selecting hotel flower arrangements and designing parking structures is making him a laughing stock around town. Not only is it absurd that someone has enough skill to do all of those things well, but it’s the height of arrogance to think one can.

Mike is not interested in a Disney legacy, he’s interested in an Eisner legacy. All that will take to arrange is some money and a soothing press release. Besides, Mike himself is getting really good at setting up production deals for executives looking “to fulfill other interests”. When the next coup comes it probably won’t be a spine-tingling shareholder meeting battle between the forces of Light and of Shadow. Just one team will slide out and another will slide in. Like last time. All the kvetching around here is kind of silly and all too familiar.

And it’s better that the change happen now within a group that understands and respects the company than wait any longer when the wolves will be on the hunt.

 

[YoHo]

AV, Have you heard any rumblings that would lead us to believe that this might happen soon?
I realize that this is the kind of thing that can fall through quickly, but there must be some time frame rumblings. Also, who else would need to be on board if anyone for this to happen.

And, can you answer my previous question about Roy?

 

[larworth]

It is not hard for me to envision WHY someone would want Disney. Regardless of some questionable moves in the management of it’s brand, it still is a preeminent one. The money, time, and serendipity it takes to build such a position will always make acquiring one an attractive alternative. Disney also has a fair sized pipeline to consumers. At some point in the Orwellian race to mega media monopolation, you have to assume that a major consumer products company becomes involved (Unilver, P&G).

As with any acquisition play there has to be an assumption that the undervaluation of the assets is greater than the market premium that would be demanded. Disney shareholders would definitely expect a pretty hefty premium, but at the current depressed price the premium might still be justifiable longer-term. Few of these deals, on paper, can be justified by nearterm results (first five years). They usually depend on assumptions about growth longer-term (5-15 years) to give them the valuation kicker they need to get over the cost of capital hump.

How difficult would it be for someone to make a case, that with the right shepardship, Disney has decent long-term potential?? The one fly in the ointment here may be Cap Cities. All the handwriting appears to be pointed in a southern direction. While I don’t see why an attractive business case is not a possibility, I agree that a buy-out seems an unlikely event.

I’m sure Eisner is very concerned about his legacy and really wants nothing more than to return Disney to the top. I just disagree on the path being taken. Unfortunately, to me he has listened to the Siren’s call. Those Siren’s that convince you to take shortterm actions to deliver unrealistic earning’s growth, while promising to take care of those rocks that lay ahead. I also believe there are plenty of capable replacements. It doesn’t bother me that I can’t put a name to them. I can’t name who is the best CEO candidate is in my own industry, let alone one I have never been associated with. But I know they exist. I also have no way to assess the probability of a Diane-led insurrection. I just assume these things fizzle out way more often than they succeed.

Absent all these scenarios, what is the likely Eisner tenure. Another 3-5 years? He must have someone (or two) who believes he is being groomed as his potential heir. Is this Iger?