Roy Disney Files Suit Against The Walt Disney Company

Club33Hopeful · Post by **Club33Hopeful** » Jul Sun 10, 2005 2:34 pm

Actually, I am quite pleased the way it turned out. Roy as a director and consultant, renewed ties to the Disney family, and renewed commitment to follow the rules already in place re: rotating the chair.

Blackie Pueblo · Post by **Blackie Pueblo** » Jul Sun 10, 2005 6:44 pm

Wow, that's really cool that you own so much stock! Mind if I ask you how you aquired it all?

Blackie Pueblo
www.newlineagefilms.com

Post by **spaulo** » Jul Mon 11, 2005 11:25 am

Roy and Stan just got slapped. No two ways to put it. WDC laid the smack down on the team from Shamrock. "Director Emeritus" is not a spot on the board, and having a member of the Disney family on as a "Consultant" is a coup for WDC, and not that big a deal for Roy... plus... no actions for five years? darn.

SaveDisney = Complete Failure.

Oh well. Life goes on.

Club33Hopeful · Post by **Club33Hopeful** » Jul Mon 11, 2005 11:48 am

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. First of all, at 75, Roy is too old to be a board member. He was already up against mandatory retirement when he left a few years ago. Being named Director Emeritus is the only way he can officially be at the board meetings without violating the bylaws. Being named Director Emeritus and Consultant gives him some power, but it could not be done any other way and still follow the rules.
Second, I don’t see this as the Save Disney movement caving to the company. We do not know all of the details of the agreement. We only know what was released in the statement. I feel that the board realized that with the power that Disney has, they may not win if Roy runs a dissident slate. They repeatedly underestimated the loyalty to Roy and the Disney name and they did not want to make that mistake again. While I would still like to see a lot of changes, I think this was a step in the right direction. Speaking as someone working at a law firm, avoiding litigation whenever possible is a good thing.
Finally, I do not see how the Save Disney movement was a complete failure. It created awareness and a renewed interest in the parks among many people. It sent Disney a message that the shareholders will not sit idle and watch the parks and business be run into the ground. It spurred many people, including myself, to increase the number of shares owned. Some might say the most important thing of all is that it facilitated in the removal of Eisner from the company. Even more than that though, it resulted in the splitting of the CEO/Chairperson roles, and the renewed commitment to rotate the chair.

Manncab · Post by **Manncab** » Jul Mon 11, 2005 2:54 pm

Blackie Pueblo wrote:Wow, that's really cool that you own so much stock! Mind if I ask you how you aquired it all?

Blackie Pueblo
www.newlineagefilms.com

quite simple start out with a parent who feels guilty for a messy divorce add in the fact i was 6 at the time and all the dividends going back in and buying more stock each qrt. as well as figureing in splits and inflation it adds up quick

im almost 35 and i still return the dividens for more stock i have never spent the checks ever that will be my retirement or for a major instant cash flow

Post by **spaulo** » Jul Tue 12, 2005 11:26 am

Club33Hopeful wrote:I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. First of all, at 75, Roy is too old to be a board member. He was already up against mandatory retirement when he left a few years ago. Being named Director Emeritus is the only way he can officially be at the board meetings without violating the bylaws. Being named Director Emeritus and Consultant gives him some power, but it could not be done any other way and still follow the rules.
Second, I don’t see this as the Save Disney movement caving to the company. We do not know all of the details of the agreement. We only know what was released in the statement. I feel that the board realized that with the power that Disney has, they may not win if Roy runs a dissident slate. They repeatedly underestimated the loyalty to Roy and the Disney name and they did not want to make that mistake again. While I would still like to see a lot of changes, I think this was a step in the right direction. Speaking as someone working at a law firm, avoiding litigation whenever possible is a good thing.
Finally, I do not see how the Save Disney movement was a complete failure. It created awareness and a renewed interest in the parks among many people. It sent Disney a message that the shareholders will not sit idle and watch the parks and business be run into the ground. It spurred many people, including myself, to increase the number of shares owned. Some might say the most important thing of all is that it facilitated in the removal of Eisner from the company. Even more than that though, it resulted in the splitting of the CEO/Chairperson roles, and the renewed commitment to rotate the chair.

Okay, perhaps "Complete Failure" was a bit of hyperbole, I'll admit that... but as "Director Emeritus," Roy is not allowed at Board meetings and casts no vote... "Emeritus" is a fancy way of saying "Retired." Roy and Stan knew that if they tried to run a competitive slate of directors, they'd fail. Plain and simple. Why? Because the stock price is inching up (which is better than dropping), the theme park numbers look good (even at DLP), Jobs is talking about talking with Iger (which he would never do with Eisner)... this is not the WDC of 2003.

Eisner's not necessarily gone. The CEO/Chairperson split could be severely temporary. "Commitments" from the Disney Board have not meant a whole lot over the last twenty years (just ask Katzenberg, Ovitz, etc)... Re-read that press release. Eisner himself could have written it. Neither Stan nor Roy did, I can tell you that much.

Game, set, match: WDC.

Club33Hopeful · Post by **Club33Hopeful** » Jul Fri 15, 2005 12:26 pm

spaulo wrote: but as "Director Emeritus," Roy is not allowed at Board meetings and casts no vote... "Emeritus" is a fancy way of saying "Retired." Roy and Stan knew that if they tried to run a competitive slate of directors, they'd fail. Plain and simple. Why? Because the stock price is inching up (which is better than dropping), the theme park numbers look good (even at DLP), Jobs is talking about talking with Iger (which he would never do with Eisner)... this is not the WDC of 2003.

Eisner's not necessarily gone. The CEO/Chairperson split could be severely temporary. "Commitments" from the Disney Board have not meant a whole lot over the last twenty years (just ask Katzenberg, Ovitz, etc)... Re-read that press release. Eisner himself could have written it. Neither Stan nor Roy did, I can tell you that much.

Game, set, match: WDC.

I'm pretty sure Roy will be at the board meetings. Here is what I do not get. WDC continually violates its own rules and bylaws. They haven't rotated the chair in the past. You insist that they might not stick to this in the future. They let Roy stay on the board after his mandatory retirement age. This list goes on, but you think they will not let Roy sit in the board meetings because it is their rule? This is what upsets me more than anything. If you have rules, stick to them. If you don't like them, change them. Don't just blatantly ignore them.

I too question the success of Roy and Stanley running a dissident slate. However, I don't see them caving to Disney because they thought they would lose. Roy is the kind of person that will keep fighting for what he believes. If it is true that he thought he couldn't win, I don't think he would have ever started this whole mess in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to glorify Roy. I'm not even sure he would be the best person running the show.

disneydreamer58 · Post by **disneydreamer58** » Jul Fri 15, 2005 1:18 pm

I think having an actual Disney family member on board in some capacity should help keep the WDC in checks and balances, but I could be wrong. I am so displeased with the prospects of new parks popping up in other parts of the world, because the two here in No. America need much on going attention, and couldn't that money be spent on for one, cast members salaries brought up to a decent level?? There are so many other things, like improvements on the existing parks, etc., that money could be used for!! It's aggravating to say the least.

I will miss the Save Disney Website, I enjoyed the articles and information and all the links associated with it.

I hope that Roy & Stan can bring about some type of change small or large to help bring Disney back to it's glory days!

When you wish upon a star...............

disneydreamer58 · Post by **disneydreamer58** » Jul Fri 22, 2005 9:25 am

http://www.savedisney.com/links/
The one think I really liked about SaveDisney.com were the links and articles, not just the ones on how to get rid of Eisner, etc. but all the information on the parks, the company, etc. I don't find Disney.com to be as informative as SaveDisney. Now that they will close that website down on Aug. 6th what will I do

I am going to miss that site. I did print a copy of the links, but I went on that site pretty much everyday to read the articles. It's too bad they can't keep it in some fashion. Ok, dang it my job is requiring me to get off line..............will be back soon.

Post by **spaulo** » Jul Fri 22, 2005 12:20 pm

Best link ever from SaveDisney.com:

KeepEisner.com

Of course, it appears gone now... it just had an "Under Construction"-type image and said <b>We're sorry, this website has not operated
efficiently or constructively for the past 20 years.</b>

Funny.

disneydreamer58 · Post by **disneydreamer58** » Jul Fri 22, 2005 12:45 pm

spaulo wrote:Best link ever from SaveDisney.com:

KeepEisner.com

Of course, it appears gone now... it just had an "Under Construction"-type image and said <b>We're sorry, this website has not operated
efficiently or constructively for the past 20 years.</b>

Funny.

Yep that was the joke when you clicked the link that "Eisner" had not operated efficiently or constructively for the past 20 years, not the website.

I will miss all the other articles, not into the Eisner bashing, or bashing of anyone, I just wanted the Disney company to come back more to Walt's line of thinking and operating. I was listening to one of the tracks earlier this morning where Walt was talking about Fantasyland, and you can just hear in his voice, his love of Disneyland and what he created for us. There was so much imagination put into the park, when you think about it. Now everything is tied to merchandising, the magic has been fading for a long time. I hope that it will start to brighten up now.