http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/050110/1105366260_2.html (http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/050110/1105366260_2.html)

QuikQuote: Cynics would quickly note that Disney's frigid meeting locales over the past few years have taken place just as investors have tired (http://www.fool.com/specials/2004/04030900ceo.htm?logvisit=y&source=eptyholnk403200) of its current regime. Rather than use its own theme-park turf to face miffed shareholders wielding questions about earlier quality lapses, it has hit the road.
Yet investors have a right to wonder why their company is paying to fly its executives and its meeting assistants around the country, when staying close to its theme parks would be more lucrative. Disney could make money from overnight guests and from those who would stick around for a meal or two, so why would it surrender the income that staying on its property would offer? Two of Disney's Florida hotels have conference-center facilities, while the Grand Californian in Anaheim does, too. How can Disney pitch itself as the appropriate site for corporate conventions when it won't eat its own cooking?
If capacity is an issue, Disney has a beautiful 7,500-seat ballpark within its Walt Disney World complex in Florida.

That is so true. I hope that ends once Eisner leaves.

Some of the problem stems from shareholders who aren't interested in making money on their investment. Something about love. So, too many people want to speak to pledge their love. Sometimes angrily. This love (not the pledging of such) can actually hurt the company, as the crappy products are released and loving shareholders (and others) will buy these products.
In order to have a seemingly efficient meeting, it's probably a good thing to keep the love to a minimum, and have people who are responsible for other people's retirements talk about their concerns for the long-term success of the company.
Meanwhile, if there is a demand for top-quality family entertainment, someone will come along to fill the void. (Oh yeah, it already has -- PIXAR.)

I suppose no one considers that shareholders like myself, who live in Minnesota, APPRECIATE the fact that these meetings are taking place in different cities each year. I would have never been able to attend a meeting in California or Florida, but hey, Minneapolis is right around the corner and this gives me the chance to finally go to one. Shareholders don't only live on the coasts.

I suppose no one considers that shareholders like myself, who live in Minnesota, APPRECIATE the fact that these meetings are taking place in different cities each year. I would have never been able to attend a meeting in California or Florida, but hey, Minneapolis is right around the corner and this gives me the chance to finally go to one. Shareholders don't only live on the coasts.
And where would you rather be right now?
Since you've volunteered to be our spokeperson at the meeting, we have the following questions....

And where would you rather be right now?

Truthfully and with all due respect to Floridians, I take Minneapolis over Florida any day, any season.

BTW, last week's New Yorker had a fascinating article about Eisner's treatment of Ovitz. Advantage: Ovitz!

Disney is always welcomed to hold its Annual Shareholder meetings in New Orleans (where I live) any time it wants to. They do have to plan around the moving dates of Mardi Gras, though, and in those years when Super Bowls come to our city. But we've got plenty of hotel rooms, easy walks to the Morial Convention Center or the Superdome, and a relatively warm and hospitable climate, lots of good restaurants, music, history.... Y'all come now, y'heah? ;) (And for family-friendly: Audubon Zoo and the Aquarium of the Americas and river cruises.)

Truthfully and with all due respect to Floridians, I take Minneapolis over Florida any day, any season.
Sounds as if you'll be there, too! We're counting on you!

a relatively warm and hospitable climate
Hence, no Disney annual meeting.... :rolleyes: