|
|
Post by tomandrobin on Apr 4, 2024 7:57:46 GMT -5
I’m not sure a stockholder vote like this represents real life. Most stockholders either don’t vote or have too small of a stake to make a difference. Those with any real voting power are oftentimes reluctant about big shake ups like this. From an investment standpoint, the known entity (even if not great) is sometimes better than the complete unknown. in other words, Disney can alienate a good part of their fans but still overwhelming win a shareholder vote over a massive board shake up. I saw this after my post.....
You are correct. This is not a "real world" vote, but a vote of an elite few.....most I am sure don't even go to the Parks.
|
|
|
|
Post by rigby on Apr 4, 2024 8:26:40 GMT -5
I’m waiting for Peltz to start yelling that it was rigged. He seems pretty Trumpy to me.  |
|
|
|
Post by brp on Apr 4, 2024 9:56:31 GMT -5
I guess the claims that current Disney management have alienated have alienated a large segment of their audience have been greatly exaggerated. You are stating things that are not factual..... I think what you mean is that what I'm stating may not be supported by the evidence I provided. And that's likely true given your data. However, that's very different than claiming that it is not factual, which would require some data to support the other position. I've not seen that. Just a bunch of claims.
In any event, the large corporations don't seem alienated by Iger and Disney doing the right thing, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth. And the public seem to be showing up in droves. And these large corporations, whose purpose is to ensure the health of Disney stick with their votes, don't appear to think that Disney doing the right thing has alienated enough people to materially affect their performance, else they'd likely have voted differently. Conjecture, of course, but these companies do their homework.
In any event, from the corporate shareholder standpoint, Iger beat the shit out of the bigot. 'Nuff said.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomandrobin on Apr 4, 2024 10:50:52 GMT -5
I’m waiting for Peltz to start yelling that it was rigged. He seems pretty Trumpy to me.  I would say the outcome was never really in doubt......so, in a round-about-way it was rigged. Iger and Disney knew this, so they too advantage of all the free publicity they could milk out of the drama.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adelard of Bath on Apr 4, 2024 10:53:26 GMT -5
So I wanted to read what this guy said in the original article, so the context would be right. The article is from March 22, 2024, in the 'Financial Times', a British-based "newspaper of record" which focuses on finance and the economy. The author is having a meal with Peltz and conducting the interview. Among other things, he is critical of the amount of money that Disney execs have been being paid, while stocks have underperformed. He stated that he doesn't necessarily want Iger to go. Peltz then talks about the need to keep politics out of business decisions, with thoughts including his disapproval that Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream (a company under the umbrella of his investment firm) is making stances on Israel, and whether companies should or should not pull out of Russia, if that's even a decision that businesses should be making. He mentions that Disney has been spending too much time, in his opinion, trying to convey "messages" in their movies, something Iger has also said. The article then says: "Returning to 'woke' Disney, he takes aim at The Marvels and Black Panther, which portrayed female and Black superheroes respectively. 'Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?' " The use of the word "woke" is by the author of the article, there is no quote where Peltz uses that word.
Read it how you want, but I don't feel that the article (or that quote) paints Peltz as a racist or woman hater.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomandrobin on Apr 4, 2024 13:56:27 GMT -5
You are stating things that are not factual..... I think what you mean is that what I'm stating may not be supported by the evidence I provided. And that's likely true given your data. However, that's very different than claiming that it is not factual, which would require some data to support the other position. I've not seen that. Just a bunch of claims.
In any event, the large corporations don't seem alienated by Iger and Disney doing the right thing, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth. And the public seem to be showing up in droves. And these large corporations, whose purpose is to ensure the health of Disney stick with their votes, don't appear to think that Disney doing the right thing has alienated enough people to materially affect their performance, else they'd likely have voted differently. Conjecture, of course, but these companies do their homework.
In any event, from the corporate shareholder standpoint, Iger beat the shit out of the bigot. 'Nuff said.
Cheers.
The facts are that the public did not speak. This was all decided by a "few" institutions that are invested in Disney stock. Public support was not a deciding factor at all.
You are correct....The existing institutions are only interested in the belief that retaining Iger is better for their stock return and/or value. They do not care about the Disney way or that they build another theme park, only what they think will financially benefit them. Voting for change is an unknown. Perhaps they want to invest more into the parks and less on making maximum profits. I don't know.
I have said this before, when Iger came back, that it was a wrong move and he should have stayed retired. Chapek was hand picked by Iger. Disney has had a serious management disruption the past five years and will continue for at least the the 2-3 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomandrobin on Apr 4, 2024 14:02:47 GMT -5
Read it how you want, but I don't feel that the article (or that quote) paints Peltz as a racist or woman hater. I do not know much of Peltz. I certainly do not know if he is racist or sexist or anything in particular except he is very wealthy. I take things people with a grain of salt, until I see and verify otherwise if its true or false, or taken out of context.
|
|
|
|
Post by brp on Apr 4, 2024 15:02:11 GMT -5
I have said this before, when Iger came back, that it was a wrong move and he should have stayed retired. Chapek was hand picked by Iger. Disney has had a serious management disruption the past five years and will continue for at least the the 2-3 years.
Well, Chapek fucked up the response to DeSantis and Iger fixed that fuck up by doing the right thing, so having him back was absolutely the right thing to do. And, yes, I know that we disagree on that and I'm sure we're both fine with that. I know I am.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratfan on Apr 4, 2024 15:20:07 GMT -5
So I wanted to read what this guy said in the original article, so the context would be right. The article is from March 22, 2024, in the 'Financial Times', a British-based "newspaper of record" which focuses on finance and the economy. The author is having a meal with Peltz and conducting the interview. Among other things, he is critical of the amount of money that Disney execs have been being paid, while stocks have underperformed. He stated that he doesn't necessarily want Iger to go. Peltz then talks about the need to keep politics out of business decisions, with thoughts including his disapproval that Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream (a company under the umbrella of his investment firm) is making stances on Israel, and whether companies should or should not pull out of Russia, if that's even a decision that businesses should be making. He mentions that Disney has been spending too much time, in his opinion, trying to convey "messages" in their movies, something Iger has also said. The article then says: "Returning to 'woke' Disney, he takes aim at The Marvels and Black Panther, which portrayed female and Black superheroes respectively. 'Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?' " The use of the word "woke" is by the author of the article, there is no quote where Peltz uses that word. Read it how you want, but I don't feel that the article (or that quote) paints Peltz as a racist or woman hater. Not sure if he's racist or a misogynist, but he sure does sound like a moron based on his quotes. |
|
|
|
Post by tomandrobin on Apr 4, 2024 15:29:26 GMT -5
I have said this before, when Iger came back, that it was a wrong move and he should have stayed retired. Chapek was hand picked by Iger. Disney has had a serious management disruption the past five years and will continue for at least the the 2-3 years.
Well, Chapek fucked up the response to DeSantis and Iger fixed that fuck up by doing the right thing, so having him back was absolutely the right thing to do. And, yes, I know that we disagree on that and I'm sure we're both fine with that. I know I am.
Cheers.
This is has nothing to do with the Chapek-DeSantis-Iger fight.
And we don't disagree completely, we just don't agree on nuances of that fight. And like you, I am fine in my opinion on the matter concerning Disney.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomandrobin on Apr 4, 2024 15:36:10 GMT -5
So I wanted to read what this guy said in the original article, so the context would be right. The article is from March 22, 2024, in the 'Financial Times', a British-based "newspaper of record" which focuses on finance and the economy. The author is having a meal with Peltz and conducting the interview. Among other things, he is critical of the amount of money that Disney execs have been being paid, while stocks have underperformed. He stated that he doesn't necessarily want Iger to go. Peltz then talks about the need to keep politics out of business decisions, with thoughts including his disapproval that Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream (a company under the umbrella of his investment firm) is making stances on Israel, and whether companies should or should not pull out of Russia, if that's even a decision that businesses should be making. He mentions that Disney has been spending too much time, in his opinion, trying to convey "messages" in their movies, something Iger has also said. The article then says: "Returning to 'woke' Disney, he takes aim at The Marvels and Black Panther, which portrayed female and Black superheroes respectively. 'Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?' " The use of the word "woke" is by the author of the article, there is no quote where Peltz uses that word. Read it how you want, but I don't feel that the article (or that quote) paints Peltz as a racist or woman hater. Not sure if he's racist or a misogynist, but he sure does sound like a moron based on his quotes. Lots of name calling labeling today.....
Explain to me how the above quote makes him a moron? He asked questions and states his opinions. You and I might not agree on what is written, but that does not make him a moron.
|
|
|
|
Post by brp on Apr 4, 2024 15:51:27 GMT -5
Not sure if he's racist or a misogynist, but he sure does sound like a moron based on his quotes. Really more of a privileged white male billionaire who simply doesn't get it and spews these inanities as if they make sense. But, yeah, moron works for him, too.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by BLTMouse on Apr 4, 2024 15:57:50 GMT -5
I think a lot of people simply thought that the challenger was worse for Disney than the current Board.
|
|
|
|
Post by rigby on Apr 4, 2024 16:21:19 GMT -5
so, in a round-about-way it was rigged.
This cracked me up. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by ratfan on Apr 5, 2024 11:51:18 GMT -5
Lots of name calling labeling today.....
Explain to me how the above quote makes him a moron? He asked questions and states his opinions. You and I might not agree on what is written, but that does not make him a moron.
See below. It fits what I see as characteristics of a moron. Really more of a privileged white male billionaire who simply doesn't get it and spews these inanities as if they make sense. But, yeah, moron works for him, too.
Cheers.
|
|
