I'd like to know what Roy thinks of all this - his site only has links to the stories (btw: congrats Roy on getting ISS on your side!)

It says nothing, however about where he stands on the merger issue. Should this take place? Or is it only useful as a sign that Eisner needs to go?

Personally, I couldn't stand to see some other company buy Disney instead of the other way around. Darnit Jobs, where are you when we need a new CEO?

I think there is a lot of watchful waiting going on right now. We've gone from a position by most analyst's that Roy was on a quixotic quest with no hope of prevailing to the latest CBS Marketwatch headline stating that Eisner's days are probably numbered. I think Pixar is still very much in the picture here- the company I am most nervous about at this point is Microsoft.

Comments from Roy (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BA40FD307%2D4CC2%2D4629%2DA751%2DFB16F29A69 B8%7D)

actually - here it is on his site: http://www.savedisney.com/news/comcast_comment.asp

Notice they don't actually say anything about their position on the merger.

They must be against it, though. Especially Roy. He may be very much at conflict with Eisner, but I don't see how become the minority partner in a company that only cares about the network assets would be a move towards maximizing the assets Roy Disney thinks important.

I'm fairly certain they are against it; this is what he has been cautioning people about all along. Conditions have been ripe for a takeover for some time now, and Roy is savvy enough to know it. It may turn the tide in his favor on a lot of levels, but it's a dangerous game. Disney is a public company, but it was founded by his family, and the thought of a huge conglomerate taking it over can't be pleasant.

Alex: my point exactly. They comment on the fact that it has come to this, but no remarks either way on the actual bid on the table.

However, if Roy does have some sort of relationship with the Comcast folks, it would be fairly easy for Comcast to acquire Disney, and then spin-off Disney Animation with Roy installed as its chief. There are tons of scenarios.

Again, under "Disney" brand would be theme parks, cruise line, films/animation, back-library, and characters. Altogether.
There's no sense in splitting them up.

And this Steve Burke person would head it all up. Might put the networks under it as well. Seems the Old-School Disney type. Ran Disney Stores before Pressler. Ran DLP out of trouble. Had ABC in a better time. Left because Eisner was being a pain in the micro-pants (supposedly).
Roy is too old to do this job. "Board member" is more his speed.

And Roy and Stan say it as well, in CBS MarketWatch report (found at top of miceage):

-- Comcast Cable President Steve Burke is a former Disney executive. Mr. Gold had the following to say about Mr. Burke:
[Steve] is a very able executive. During his tenure at Disney he
did some creative things -- he ran a park. He is really the driving force behind the Disney stores and the merchandising in the days in which they were growing -- in "the great days" as Roy says -- and when he left they began to fall on bad times and have a real poor product selection. Steve himself is the kind of guy that Disney ought to be populating all of its divisions with ... Maybe the most important reason he left the company was Michael Eisner.
Mr. Disney said: "[Steve] was really a Disney kind of guy."

Thank you for that sentiment, sediment. (sorry, had to work that in somehow!)

That's the kind of quote I was looking for.... iiiiiiiiiiiinteresting.

Originally posted by sediment
Roy is too old to do this job. "Board member" is more his speed.

I guess I should've explained my thought a little better. By "chief," I meant that he would have more control over his baby again. Whether in the role of board member or just influential friend of the actual CEO, Roy may be able to save the "old Disney" company through this merger if in fact he does have some sort of relationship with Comcast.

I have to object to the "too old" comment- he may be chronologically challenged, but the man is a workhorse, and quite sharp. I wish I had his energy.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by wendybeth
I have to object to the "too old" comment- he may be chronologically challenged, but the man is a workhorse, and quite sharp. I wish I had his energy.:rolleyes:
I don't know him that well.
In that same article, he and Stan suggest that there are roughly six people they think can do Eisner's job.

-- With respect to a prospective replacement for Michael Eisner, Mr. Gold was asked whether he and Mr. Disney have a particular person in mind. Mr. Gold responded: "Sure."
When asked for the name of the person, Mr. Gold said, "Can't tell you."
Mr. Disney added, "You need to [understand that Mr. Eisner] spent a lot of time creating this myth of irreplaceability."
And, Mr. Gold said: "They're five, six people who come to mind. ...
The fact is, that there is at least a half a dozen very good people out there that I think could do this job and probably would do it if it were offered."

I believe Roy when he states that he does not want a position of power; he didn't want the top job twenty years ago, and he doesn't now. He could have fought his retirement from the board, and he would have won. (There is an exemption for management). I think he has been watching this company go into the toilet for too long, and he knew that he could accomplish more on the outside than while under the constraints of being on the board.

Originally posted by sediment
Again, under "Disney" brand would be theme parks, cruise line, films/animation, back-library, and characters. Altogether.
There's no sense in splitting them up.


No sense from who's perspective? If I were a media/communications company - all I care about (really) is stuff I can broadcast and sell advertising space on. THat's how I make money and my shareholders increase their value. While I agree that the parks and other destinations may never lose their Disney name (licensing, etc.), I think it is a highly risky proposition to simply assume that they'd keep EVERYTHING under one roof.

I want it to stay but I can't see it. Unless they bring back the "Disneyland" tv show...

I kinda wish we all hand the funds to buy up enough stock to own voting rule. Although that might be like the episode of the Simpsons where all the Mensa people start running the town.

Imagine a Disneyland run by Disney fans. We might end up at each others throats.

The rumor going around on the Disney lot is that Roy & Stan are behind the Comcast offer.

Also another rumor, Disney IT is tracking any time someone goes to the SaveDisney website.

Originally posted by olegc
No sense from who's perspective? If I were a media/communications company - all I care about (really) is stuff I can broadcast and sell advertising space on. THat's how I make money and my shareholders increase their value. While I agree that the parks and other destinations may never lose their Disney name (licensing, etc.), I think it is a highly risky proposition to simply assume that they'd keep EVERYTHING under one roof.

I want it to stay but I can't see it. Unless they bring back the "Disneyland" tv show...

1. My perspective.
2. Not "EVERYTHING." Only the things I mentioned. From what I can see, the films, the theme parks, and the imagineering have nothing to do with cable distribution. Anything without the Disney name can go, IMO.
3. Comcast wants the Disney-owned networks. So it doesn't have to negotiate to put it in the cable package, and so it can play harder ball with cable companies that offer no network in kind.