Quote from Yahoo News 9/10/04 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=1&u=/nm/20040910/bs_nm/leisure_disney_eisner_dc):

"Analysts have named such contenders as News Corp. Chief Operating Officer Peter Chernin; former Viacom Inc. President Mel Karmazin; and Jeff Bewkes, who chairs Time Warner Inc.'s entertainment and networks group; eBay Inc. CEO Meg Whitman; Gap Inc. CEO Paul Pressler; Tom Freston, co-president of Viacom; Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) Chairman and Chief Executive Terry Semel, and even Steve Jobs (news - web sites), the chief executive of Pixar Animation Studios Inc. and Apple Computer."

Scary to see his name in print even if its just pure speculation!

Analysts are NOT (edited -- forgot this important word) always smart about these things.
I'd like to see someone with more movie-making experience instead of TV experience. The TV experience makes me think that ABC/CapCities will not be sold as it should be.

I dont think ABC should be sold. It just needs so HUGE changes and they cant let the disney name get all over it.

I do. It's worth a lot more than it was bought for, AND it loses money. That it could be sold for so much is an indication that DIS doesn't know how to operate it successfully.
Whenever something of questionable appropriateness is aired, DIS is brought up: "How can Disney air such trash?" I hear.
When "Millionaire" was a success, it was short-termed to death.
Even though "Playmakers" on ESPN was critically acclaimed, DIS succumbed to pressure from the NFL. Meanwhile, MNF on ABC loses money (though it's supposed to be a loss-leader that promotes the rest of the line-up, which doesn't cater to those watching MNF, because Disney is trying to grab a different audience -- women that like "Men That Have Hot Wives But Are Idiots shows).
I say, get out of the televising business, especially when it comes to airing treasures on every possible channel.

On paper I continue to think Disney buying ABC/CapCities was a good idea. Owning the networks and all that potential ad revenue could have worked out great since Disney is a big, had been successful, movie studio. Other movie studios were buying networks at the time, mid-1990s. Disney's downfall was in mis-assuming it could manage ABC and the other networks on the cheap. So they didn't put on the best programming or hire the best and brightest producers, stars, writers, directors, producers, etc. They over-trusted the "Disney brand" and mis-assumed that if Disney owned it, they would come, mis-assumed the booming '90s would continue, misread the continuing out-migration of viewers from traditional broadcast to cable and underestimates the real challenger: HBO. People continue to watch traditional broadcast networks. Viacom is able to lure viewers, so is General Electric, and both Viacom and GE have cable networks as well. Disney should have been able to make a success of ABC. HBO gets the great press for new and fresh TV series (Sex in the City, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, various made for cable specials and movies and mini-series). With Disney's "brand" they ought to be attracting the kind of talent that is now heading for more creative and lucrative pastures, which includes HBO. Something happened with behind the scenes where that opportunity not only got blown, but continues to be lost year after year for most of the past decade. Disney has got to pour money into top talent so ABC perks up. Robert Iger's job is to perk up ABC, so far he hasn't, and so what makes Iger heir-apparent to Michael Eisner if Iger can't perk up the ABC albatross around Disney's neck and make that albatross fly away for good?

Pressler as a future Disney CEO? I cannot accept that. My last visit to Disneyland was in February 1995 just at the transition between Jack Lundquist (Lindquist?) and Paul Pressler, so I knew that park as it had always been maintained and cared for and added to. Without seeing the changes under Pressler-Harris for myself, I am willing to trust the press and fan reportage about Disneyland under Pressler-Harris. Fatalities on rides that should have had better training and maintanance, the merchandise events and how crowded and not managed some of those were, the deterioration of the park.... It's obvious you don't promote someone who cannot do the job. From what I'm reading in the press, The Gap is stumbling lately anyway, so jumping from Disney to The Gap should have enhanced Paul Pressler's corporate career but it hasn't. If The Gap isn't a flying high success story under Pressler I cannot see where Pressler would be more successful running a corporation that makes kids' and adults movies, hotels, theme parks, fine dining restaurants, cruise ships, TV networks, syndicated shows, radio and TV stations and networks, book and magazine publishing as well as retailing. All Pressler mainly knows is retailing and I think operating a diversified entertainment and travel company such as Disney would put Pressler out of his league and overwhelm him and underserve shareholders.

ABC is what's killing Disney, honestly. They need to ditch the ABC assets immediately. Then and only then will they be able to give adequate attention to Disney's core needs. The entire existence of ABC/Cap Cities within the Disney corporate structure is a terrible distraction to the business as a whole.

And Pressler as a possible CEO is just begging for trouble. That'd be like Sony touting Jon Peters as a possible CEO for Sony Pictures.

Terry Semel, on the other hand, might actually be an interesting choice. Currently Yahoo's chairman and CEO, Semel started out at Warner Brothers, then later spent several years at Disney, where he managed the Theatrical Distribution division, then went back to Warner Bros., where he replaced - guess who? - Frank Wells as studio president. http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/executives/semel.html

Here's some more interesting info on him I discovered - http://news.com.com/2100-1023-255995.html?legacy=cnet

Semel's career in entertainment began in 1965 when he joined Warner Bros. as a sales trainee for its film distribution business. He stayed on until 1972, when he switched jobs to become president of CBS' theatrical and marketing distribution and then president of a similar division at Disney in 1973.

Semel returned to Warner Bros. after his stint at Disney and in 1978 became the executive vice president and chief operating officer. In 1980 he was appointed vice chairman and COO of the company, a position he served in until 1994, when we has promoted to co-chairman and co-CEO in 1994 alongside Daly.

---------------

In an interview, Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang said that Semel's background in media is attractive, but emphasized that he took to the match in large part because of the fit in personality.

"One thing we looked at was his personal attributes," Yang said. "He's a guy that doesn't have a lot of ego, that builds great teams and lets the team take a lot of the credit. He's a guy who is able to be flexible and innovate and build business models on top of great brands. These are the things we look at in a person and a business leader."

One person who worked closely with Semel described him as enjoyable to work with within Warner Bros. But in Hollywood, he also developed a reputation as being someone who never returned phone calls and was commonly late to meetings. The source said that reputation was born out of Semel's emphasis on making contacts that mattered, and the ones that mattered he devoted much attention to--maybe too much--talking through his ideas without noticing the clock.

"Terry liked to talk," said the source, who asked not to be named. "When he got a concept going, he'd sit there and take all the time needed, so if it meant the next guy was late, the next guy was late."

Former and current colleagues also described Semel as a charismatic, low-key family man who garnered respect from many in the industry. His charm was sometimes complemented by an attitude that seemed standoffish to outsiders.

"He's a laid-back guy," Daly said. "He doesn't have a big ego, and his objective is to get something done. He likes smart people around him; he likes people to challenge him."

Sounds like the anti-Eisner to me. :D

Gotta ask yourself: What Would Walt Do? (WWWD)

ABC is what's killing Disney, honestly. They need to ditch the ABC assets immediately. Then and only then will they be able to give adequate attention to Disney's core needs. The entire existence of ABC/Cap Cities within the Disney corporate structure is a terrible distraction to the business as a whole.

That's my line! Sell it to Time/Warner, if they can raise the dough.

We happen to be watching Extreme Makeover Home Edition on Sunday. The show sent the family to Walt Disney World. I said to wife and one kid, "Good synergy; they probably do that every week." Wife said it was the first time she had seen the show send the family to WDW. One time, she said, the family went to the Virgin Islands.
Just another example of synergy that should have been created by the ABC/CapCities purchase not being maximized. And it's been, what, nine years or so? The only "synergy" I've seen is the televising of the Disney classics which actually cheapens that asset to the benefit of the networks.

(Source of "nine years" remark right here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1995/08/01/MN58745.DTL). Interesting article from before the merger.)

And, it's going to be impossible from now on to sell ABC/Cap Cities assets, because Iger is going to be in charge of all of Disney, and unless he goes with it (crossing fingers, quick evil prayer...), he and it aren't going anywhere.
(According to the article I linked, he was there before DIS bought it.)