Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney Board Turns Down Comcast Takeover Bid

Posted by timothy on from the but-no-thanks dept.

scifience writes "Disney's board of directors today turned down Comcast's hostile takeover bid, reports MSNBC. The board expressed confidence in Eisner's leadership. One interesting quote released by the board is that they will, '...carefully consider any legitimate proposal...' Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?"

214 comments

  1. More money and less Eisner by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Disney clearly wants a better financial package. That is what they mean by " '...carefully consider any legitimate proposal..."

    Further, I do not believe that they are terribly crazy about Eisner anymore even though they throw him a bone (for now) when they say "(The board) has confidence in the business, financial and creative direction of Disney under the leadership of Michael Eisner and his management team." They will gladly jettison Eisner when they have a "...legitimate proposal."

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:More money and less Eisner by wilgamesh · · Score: 5, Informative
      Righto.

      According to economist article the Comcast offer was viewed as clearly low-ball. They would need to raise it by $8 per share to be on par with Disney perceived share value. What Disney may be doing is engaging in shrewd negotiations- the proper thing to do! I quote the salient paragraph from Economist article:

      "Mr Eisner, one of the entertainment world's great survivors, will no doubt try to fight to the death. He may offer yet more corporate governance reforms--though the easy ones are mostly done. He will point out that Comcast's opening offer, originally worth $27 a share and falling, is too low--though Comcast has surely known all along that it will have to raise its offer closer to the $35 that Lawrence Haverty of State Street Research says would tempt institutional investors. The fact is, if Disney's board really wants to keep one of the world's iconic companies independent, its best strategy may be to replace Mr Eisner forthwith. Otherwise, Comcast will soon be doing it instead."

    2. Re:More money and less Eisner by LostCluster · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Comcast was likely hoping that Disney investors on Wall Street would have signed off on the deal by selling their Disney stock and buying Comcast stock, which would have caused the ratios to slide in Comcast's favor. Instead, the reverse happened, Comcast went down and Disney went up, making Comcast's stock swap offer worth less and less as Friday went on.

    3. Re:More money and less Eisner by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When the phrase "we have confidence" or its variations are used in a public statement, I usually discount the rest of the statement as corporate BS. Of course they're going to say they are confident. But are they?

      How about coming up with something a little less cut and dry and more off the cuff convincing like "we are unwavering in our committment to seeing this through. We have studied all of our options and we are throwing 100% of our weight behind this decision". Anyway, just a pet peeve. :)

    4. Re:More money and less Eisner by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I don't understand is why all the talk about percieved value and expected selling prices for institutional investors. If Disney is worth more than its current street price to these institutional investors then why hasn't the stock actually reached that valuation? Is Disney worth more in the hands of some other company than as an independant entity? I mean if the information in the system is that Disney is worth $35 then that should be the price of the stock, if the investors are saying they won't sell unless they make a certain profit and they do not expect other bidders then the people invested in their funds should throw them out because any profit is better than no profit.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:More money and less Eisner by gmhowell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do I think you're insightful merely because I agree with you, and was preparing a similar comment? Maybe.

      The 'Economist' has forgotten some bits of economic theory in favor of financial instruments. Plain and simple. A price expresses value only at the time of a transaction. There are millions of transactions of Disney stock on a daily basis that show, as of today, that the Economist article, no matter what formulae they use, is wrong.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    6. Re:More money and less Eisner by ffsnjb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be the problem with the stock market. Stock price rarely ever indicates true market value of a company. Stock price is determined by one thing and one thing only: emotion of traders. If stock price was actually an indicator of value, it'd wouldn't change on the whims of investors and how they feel on a given day.

      --
      "Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
    7. Re:More money and less Eisner by datan · · Score: 1

      offhand without knowing the actual figures, there are two reasons why Disney might be worth more as part of an acquistion. the first would be "synergies" which would the additional value created by the merger. Yeah, it sounds like a cop-out, but it refers to additional market share; lower infrastructural costs; leverage of distribution chains etc. that would increate the valuation of the merged firm as compared to both separately. Synergies can be negative though... the second would be the amount of debt/equity ratio (financial leverage) of the new firm. Again, I don't have the exact figures, but if a firm is able to take on more debt all things being equal its total valuation goes up since interest payments are tax-deductable; so by increasing your debt/equity ratio, you actually create firm value. which is why firm's with a relatively low amount of debt are attractive targets for hostile takeovers.

    8. Re:More money and less Eisner by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If Comcast goes back up, and Disney goes back down, then the offer may indeed be considered again. Remember, Comcast is an entertainment giant, and they can stick ads in every single one of their paper bills. This could get more people going to Disney theme parks, Disney films, Disney everything, for the same price that Comcast currently mails its paper bills to customers.

      --
      Presenting truth in a non-political format. Click on my .sig.

      --
      Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
    9. Re:More money and less Eisner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Comcast was likely hoping that Disney investors on Wall Street would have signed off on the deal by selling their Disney stock and buying Comcast stock, which would have caused the ratios to slide in Comcast's favor. Instead, the reverse happened, Comcast went down and Disney went up, making Comcast's stock swap offer worth less and less as Friday went on.



      WTF? This gets modded up?

      Doesn't anyone outside of business school learn basic economics anymore???

      Selling Disney shares when this deal hit the street would have been contrary to common sense if you were "signing off on the deal."

      Investors who believed in this deal would have BOUGHT Disney shares until they were priced the same as the Comcast offer. If you know I'll buy your shares of Disney stock on Friday for $44, and you can buy them from the market on Thursday for $34, would you buy? Sure you would. More people would buy in this situation, causing the price to rise toward the offer price. When the offer price is reached, the market may even go higher if enough people think the offer is too low, or if they think someone else will come in a make a larger offer. The market for Disney shares went up because enough investors DID believe this deal was possible. The market for Disney shares went higher than the Comcast offer because investors believe that Disney was being sold too cheap; that Comcast's offer was lower than it should have been.

      The price variance of the target company is mostly related to the offer price and the odds of the deal going through, and the odds of a third party "white knight" coming in and upping the bid, although there are a lot more factors involved. The price variance of a predator company is much, much more complex and not something that can be taught in a /. posting.

      No one sells below the offered price because they "sign off on the deal" unless they're stupid, and stupid investors can't last long in the market because the market takes all their money. Investors are herd of hungry cattle looking for profit. Selling a stock for $34 when it has an open pending offer to buy the stock for $44 is stupid unless you believe the buyer won't complete the purchase and the intrinsic value of the company is less than the offer.

      Wow. I'm stunned. I guess this is why I don't come to /. for investment analysis.

    10. Re:More money and less Eisner by GiveMeLinux · · Score: 1

      Well I guess they wont offer to pay with Disney Dollars in their next bid.

    11. Re:More money and less Eisner by bm_luethke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mostly because a stock few want isn't worth much but a stock that people want is worth a lot. In this case few want it, but one in individual REALLY wants it driving thier cost up. Since stock price is not "real" any way (not based on physical qualities such as scarcity or manufacturing dificulty) then the price seems very fluid.

      I'll use an example I find I am currently bit with. I own two guns that I might sell (well, I only want to sell the first as the second has sentimental and neatness value making the selling price such that no one is going to pay it).

      One, a muzzleloader (black poweder rifle) sells new for about 550 as I have it equipped. I'm asking 350 for it (and they sell new at 550 regularly) but can't sell it to save my life. It is worth, as far as the parts, fit, machining quality, and such way more than 350 but I can't get that for it. I have been unsuccessful making trades for it for an item the depreciates where a firearm increases in value. I really do not understand why as I would take some of the prices and trades I've offered.

      The second gun, a WWII vintage rifle is barely worth 200 based on quality of shooting and machining. Yet because of collectors wanting said gun I could easily get 1000 for it (been offered that much directly), and it goes up signifigantly every year. I would not pay anything near that for the stylr of gun (though since it has value other than simply what it is I will not sell it except for great sums of money).

      Stocks seem to be the same thing. Disney, as disney with Eisner in charge, is worth a certain price. Comcast trying to take it over is worth much more.

      I, personally, would sell Disney in a heart beat at a fair merket value as there is probably little "other" (say, sentimental) value in stock, but then again I'm not rich off the stock market and don't know its ins and outs.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    12. Re:More money and less Eisner by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I work in a museum. We are in the process of amassing a pile of trinkets, junk mail, and discarded furnature. It just so happens that all of it was owned by some guy who lived 200 years ago by the name of Ben Franklin. It doesn't matter what it actually is, from a bedpan to an old sofa, so long as Franklin owned, used it, or built it himself it's priceless.

      It's like in Antique road show where they say "well, normally this piece would be $40, but since it has that story to go with it..."

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    13. Re:More money and less Eisner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Wow. I'm stunned. I guess this is why I don't come to /. for investment analysis.

      You and me both man. Computer geeks seem to suffer from specialist disease. The tighter the specialization, the more belief that they have insight into things that they never bothered to learn anything about. After all, business should be trivial to anyone who has learned the arcana of the Win32 API or perl - right?

    14. Re:More money and less Eisner by ctr2sprt · · Score: 1
      What I don't understand is why all the talk about percieved value and expected selling prices for institutional investors. If Disney is worth more than its current street price to these institutional investors then why hasn't the stock actually reached that valuation?
      Well, my guess is that the recent troubles of the company have made investors jittery. They aren't so much afraid that Disney's going to go bust, they're more afraid that they'll get caught with their pants down. If they hold onto Disney shares, and suddenly everyone else starts selling, then they'll be screwed. But if they sell fast, even if everyone else is doing it at the same time, they'll at least minimize their losses. So what we have there, if I'm right, is that investors aren't worried about Disney, they're worried about other investors. And they're probably right. Disney's stock price shot up when news of this bid broke. It's normal for that to happen, of course, but the extent to which it happened here... It suggests, to me at least, that investors know damn well Disney is worth more than it's trading for. And now that they know the company's troubles won't doom it with shareholders, they want back in.

      Is Disney worth more in the hands of some other company than as an independant entity?
      Obviously Comcast thinks so. The issue here is that the cable market is essentially locked up. There aren't any more cable customers out there. So they are trying to expand into new fields where they can grow. But why reinvent the wheel, right? Buy out a struggling company with huge name recognition and try to turn it around. Disney isn't just Disney, it's also ABC (very weak) and ESPN (pretty much the sole corporate moneymaker).

      If Comcast can make it work, it's a big win for everybody. Well, by "everybody" I mean the companies and their shareholders. It may turn out to be a bad thing for everybody else, but that's a subject for a different post.

    15. Re:More money and less Eisner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't the Disney board then just offer ABC and ESPN properties to Comcast, or have those two components of Disney become far more valuable than the core Disney assets, because it seems pretty obvious that if Comcast owned ESPN, it would stick it to other cable TV companies, DirecTV and EchoStar when it came time to price ESPN to those services, because does it not seem likely that Comcast would simply keep ABC and ESPN and jettison the rest of Disney afterwards?

      At least from watching TV, I do not perceive a lot of Disney synergy with them owning ABC and ESPN and pawning Disney products (Mickey Mouse, Brother Bear, etc). If one watches the Disney Channel for any time at all, you will never see a cross-promotion on it for ABC or ESPN properties, unless it is a product that has been moved to ABC in part or whole. There is more cross-promotion of ABC and ESPN properties, such as, "watch ESPN Sports Center immediately after tonite's Monday Night Football Game". But it really is limited.

    16. Re:More money and less Eisner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are the same people who are shorting SCOX and MSFT. What did you expect?

    17. Re:More money and less Eisner by TGK · · Score: 1

      That's the theory, but in practice it works differently.

      Lets say Disney has a value of X dollars. This value represents the sum total of all assets Disney holds minus all liabilities Disney holds.

      Now, Disney stock is worth Y, which is the street value of each share of Disney stock currently in circulation, not all of this stock is -=in=- circulation. Y is generally bigger than X. However, Y represents the perceived value of the stock at some indeterminate future time as traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

      The number Disney is talking about is Z. Z is the value of the Disney corporations Assets, minus its liabilities, plus something ethereal which represents the Good Name of the Disney corporation. This discrepancy accounts for unquantifiable values such as the loyalty of Disney's customers, the value of the contacts Disney holds, and the universal name recognition of things like Disney World, Mickey Mouse, and Donald Duck.

      In most cases Y > Z. In Disney's case this isn't true because it's their BUISNESS to create the vague concepts that make Z big. Disney wants more money to represent the true value of their company. They're probably justified in asking for it.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    18. Re:More money and less Eisner by Darth23 · · Score: 1

      >>>. Wow. I'm stunned. I guess this is why I don't come to /. for investment analysis. Uh, Is this the ONLY reason you don't look to a techie-nerd site for financial advice? Would you want a stock broker to install your computer?

      --

      -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

    19. Re:More money and less Eisner by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it, as the stock is purchased, the demand/supply changes, somebody has to barter for those shares, and as the supply dwindles, the cheap sales disappear... in the end, just imagine being the last guy holding the last share Comcast needs... "hmmm, you want $40 for my share which will give you controlling interest in Disney?... Yeah, it's only worth $40 to me, but you seem to be willing to pay a little more for it..."

      So rather than fighting that losing battle, mass negotiations like this occur, with boards speaking on behalf of the shareholders.

      Here the board said "we don't think your offer is in the shareholder's best interest"

      If the shareholders didn't like Eisner, as I understand it, they might be more open to accepting the offer.

      If any brokers would like to correct me, please do.

    20. Re:More money and less Eisner by mwood · · Score: 1

      The board at Disney may also be asking themselves the question I asked myself: what in the world would Comcast *do* with Disney Studios? Their network holdings are another and much clearer story.

    21. Re:More money and less Eisner by Tharian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you say is very true. However, unless Disney has offered new stock since news of the bid attempt, someone has to be selling those stocks that others are trying to snatch up in that drive for a stock looking to go up.

      I'm not trying to contradict you. I'm merely looking more at the next to last paragraph, specifically the "unless you believe the buyer won't complete the purchase and the intrinsic value of the company is less than the offer" part of it.

      I'm wondering who believes that Disney is worth less than the value Comcast had bid.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Nerds make more money.
    22. Re:More money and less Eisner by nytmare · · Score: 1

      Exactly. For every buyer, there must be a seller, right?

  2. With Pixar being lead by "You know who" .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    With Pixar being lead by "You know who" , will MS buy Disney .... (we'll see Mickey mouse using windows soon....)

    1. Re:With Pixar being lead by "You know who" .... by first.last · · Score: 0

      Your "mickey mouse operating system" implication is a pretty cheap shot. Accurate, but still cheap.

      --
      Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
    2. Re:With Pixar being lead by "You know who" .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mickey, being a rodent, finds that Linux is not ready for his "desktop" yet.

    3. Re:With Pixar being lead by "You know who" .... by Accipiter · · Score: 5, Funny

      we'll see Mickey mouse using windows soon...

      Ugh.

      "HaHa! I'm Mickey! It looks like you're trying to write a letter!"

      --

      -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
      (If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

    4. Re:With Pixar being lead by "You know who" .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not funny in any concievable manner.

    5. Re:With Pixar being lead by "You know who" .... by Luyseyal · · Score: 0

      Your "HaHa!" made me think of Nelson (from the Simpsons of course)... they should have a Nelson Office Assistant. Now THAT'D be funny.

      "It looks like you're writing a letter to your Grandma. Ha-ha!"

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  3. Not surprising by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Neither the camp that supports Eisner nor the camp that wants to depose Eisner and take over the company themselves is going to vote in favor of Comcast taking over. Finally, an issue the two groups can unite on!

  4. I think this is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not sure I'd have any desire to go to Comcast World.

    1. Re:I think this is good. by originalTMAN · · Score: 2, Funny

      Really? I'd much rather see Mike the Cable Techinician than Mickey Mouse!

    2. Re:I think this is good. by tepples · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather see Mike the Cable Techinician than Mickey Mouse!

      Don't you mean Chip Douglas the Cable Guy? Pick quotes for great moderation.

      (Yes, I know The Cable Guy is by Columbia not Disney, but precedent exists: a Paramount park in Ohio has a Hanna-Barbera themed area, and Hanna-Barbera is Warner.)

    3. Re:I think this is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you expect such a long-winded comment to get modded up?

    4. Re:I think this is good. by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kings Island, Kings Dominion, etc. have had Hanna Barbera areas since their inception. I suspect Kings Island will change, as has Kings Dominion. For example, most of the HB themed rides at KD are now Nickelodeon rides. Yogi's Cave is gone. No Smurf train.

      Okay, a couple of links to 'Kings' parks' history.

      The parks were owned by Taft Broadcasting. Went into agreement with HB. bought by Paramount, who has been putting in new, more familiar, better money-making, and wholly owned brands.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:I think this is good. by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what Epcot is?

    6. Re:I think this is good. by D-Cypell · · Score: 1

      Well it would make the small world ride more efficient..

      Rather than visiting all the individual countries, and seeing poor stereotypical models reprenting their culture... you can just sit in one room and video conference.

    7. Re:I think this is good. by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 0

      I've never even been to Disney World, but I can honestly say that the two not getting together twims down on the monopolies and huge companies we have walking around dominating.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    8. Re:I think this is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just be glad that Cox isn't trying to buy them.

    9. Re:I think this is good. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Why?

      The kids would have a great time in the technology wonders section where they are allowed to smash and bash Dish Network equipment with baseball bats..

      finally taking the ride through the newly replaced "home of the future" where everyone is happy with their Comcast High speed internet where billy doesnt download anything and it really is barely used, and everyone watches the comcast digital HD television and mommy has a second job to pay for the Comcast bill monthly...

      Oh and be sure to ride the "cable rates" rollercoaster...

      besides, epcot would look great with the red swoosh painted on it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:I think this is good. by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      "Basically we're asking SCO to put up or shut up." -Linux

      Eh? You seem to be quoting a piece of software. Is this quip in the code somewhere?
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    11. Re:I think this is good. by pogle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it made me sad growing up to watch the disappearance of the HB characters. Used to park in lots named after chars, hide in Yogi's cave during sudden downpours, see Snagglepuss and Huckleberry Hound suits walking around instead of 6 foot sponges or rugrats.

      I've been to the park(kings dominion, VA) at least once a year for my entire life, have some very early memories of it. Makes me see to see the overcommercialized and *very* aggravating nickelodeon crap everywhere now.

      They didn't even redo Yogi's cave! They just removed the bears (even left the footprints!) and renamed it. Punks.

      --
      http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
    12. Re:I think this is good. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Oh, geez, is that what they did to Yogi's Cave? I haven't been in about two years (and went during a crowded, humid, 95+ day), only saw that it wasn't Yogi, and made a face like that indian in the littering commercial from the 70's.

      If you ever have the chance, watch a copy of 'Rollercoaster', a 70's disaster movie that shows KD when 'Rebel Yell' was THE coaster at the park. Two great parts. First, the original train ride is evident. Second, the covered walkway near the entrance of Rebel Yell (canopy of ivy or some greenage) had just been planted, so was only about 18 inches tall. (Also plenty of scenes of Six Flags: Magic Mountain from the same era.)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  5. Comcast is a lot bigger than I thought by Snake_Plisken · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My local paper (Philadelphia Daily News) ran a comparison recently between the two - in terms of revenue, Disney grossed 50% more than Comcast, which is less than I would have thought. Comcast has cable companies in 41 states, and the Disney op does not have substantially more personnel than Comcast. Doesn;t mean a hill of beans when you start crunching numbers, but it showed me that Comcast has more muscle than I thought they did, and that the second round might be the one if they can cough up some more cash.

    --

    Eat recycled food - it's good for the environment, and OK for you.
    1. Re:Comcast is a lot bigger than I thought by Roofus · · Score: 1

      and the Disney op does not have substantially more personnel than Comcast. .
      I was reading MultiChannel News, and it put the employee numbers at Comcast - 60,000, Disney - 110,000. So it appears that Disney has many more employees than Comcast.

      However, Comcast has a market capitalization of 70 Billion vs Disney's 56 Billion

  6. Resistance is futile by LibertineR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When Comcast asks Gates to start waving money under their shareholders noses, Eisner will be out on his ass before you can say "Takeover". Disney can do this the hard way or the easy way, but in the end, everyone has their price. I hope Eisner developed some hobbies outside of Disney, cause the target on his back is a mile wide, and just a few bucks short.

    1. Re:Resistance is futile by Wavicle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope Eisner developed some hobbies outside of Disney, cause the target on his back is a mile wide, and just a few bucks short.

      I believe his hobby is "swimming in pool of money filled by severance package."

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    2. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Offtopic"? Seems a little harsh...

    3. Re:Resistance is futile by JimBobJoe · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe his hobby is "swimming in pool of money filled by severance package."

      Holy Crap! It's true! Scrooge McDuck is Eisner!

    4. Re:Resistance is futile by v01d · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. It seems most of /. is incapable of evaluating a statement based on the worth of that statement.
      Oh well, you didn't expect independent thought here did you?

  7. Please Consider by miknight · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?"

    I thought they did consider it... just because they rejected it doesn't mean they didn't consider it, right? :P
  8. Means one of two things... by i)ave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A) They like the amount Comcast offered, but don't think Comcast has the realistic ability to scrape together that kind of bread

    B) They want to fan the flames a little to see who else wants to pony up for a ride on the You bid, they bid, we get back to you, then let's repeat.. train. Considering what's going on between Cingular and Vodaphone over ATT Wireless right now, I can't say I'd be surprised if that's their motivation.

    --
    -- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
    1. Re:Means one of two things... by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A) They like the amount Comcast offered, but don't think Comcast has the realistic ability to scrape together that kind of bread

      Comcast offered a stock-swap... and as soon as they announced that their stock price dropped. Worse yet, Disney's price rose. Oops. As a result, the cash value of the deal fell, and Comcast's offer seemed even less attractive than it was when the day started. Needless to say, Wall Street disapproved of this deal and didn't want it to happen.

    2. Re:Means one of two things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast offered a stock-swap... and as soon as they announced that their stock price dropped. Worse yet, Disney's price rose. Oops. As a result, the cash value of the deal fell, and Comcast's offer seemed even less attractive than it was when the day started. Needless to say, Wall Street disapproved of this deal and didn't want it to happen.

      Bonehead mods. "Wall Street" didn't disapprove of this deal. There is no "didn't want it to happen" even possible. Wall Street is a market, not a personality.

      Disney rose 'cause Disney's owners thought the offer is too low. Comcast fell 'cause it can't complete the deal without offering more of itself to Disney investors. Wall Street didn't disapprove of this deal; Disney's Board, representing Disney's shareholders, disapproved of this deal 'cause they didn't think they were getting enough of Comcast in return. It's really that simple.

    3. Re:Means one of two things... by rcs1000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Damnit!

      The Comcast share price falling and the Disney price rising is JUST ARBITRAGE. It means nothing about what people expect the combined business to do.

      If I want to buy company X, I must pay more than the current price (a premium). So, I must offer more of my own stock than I recieve in return:

      Slashdot Inc. shares trade at $22; Google Inc. trades at $18. (I'm assuming both companies have identical number of shares for similicities sake...)

      As Slashdot, I want to buy Google. So I offer one Slashdot share for every Google share. Google share holders go "hmmm... I get a share worth $22, instead of my one worth $18, good deal".

      *BUT* and here's the kicker. There are thousands of arbitrageurs who sense a perfect profit - they SHORT Slashdot (driving the share price down), and BUY GOOGLE (driving it up). So, Slashdot goes down, Google up... it's... just... arbitrage...

      Thanks,

      Robert

      --
      --- My dad's political betting
    4. Re:Means one of two things... by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      The purchase of the company was issue stock of Comcast. So it cost them basically no bread at all. Hell I could buy Disney by offering stock. It is just a matter if I could convince the company that my offer was worth anything by me being in charge.

      They could probalbly up the anty a bit too for a stock to stock exchange. It is basically no cash out of their pocket.

    5. Re:Means one of two things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you think the stock they're using for the purchase comes from? Photoshop?

      And no, you could not buy anything with your own issued stock, unless you can someone convince Wall Street that Herkum Inc should be valued at a few billion dollars.

  9. Required Comment by Jim_Hawkins · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, it's a good thing Disney turned it down. If they hadn't, it would have been like joining Beauty with the Beast. Having two huge companies like that would have created A Whole New World, and who knows what problems that would have caused!

    Seriously, though, Disney is going to have Be Prepared for the future -- who knows where it's going to take them...with their animation studio pretty much in shambles. Until they figure out what to do, though, it's just Hakuna Matata!

    Okay...I tried...

    1. Re:Required Comment by Naffer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Har Har.
      Anyway, anyone else draw the AOL-TimeWarner versus Comcast-Disney comparison? Whats with internet companies thinking that media companies are a good match for them?

    2. Re:Required Comment by Babbster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While Comcast delivers internet service to a lot of people, they are not an "internet company" per se. In the theoretical realm, Comcast is a better match for Disney than AOL for TW because Comcast already specializes in delivering exactly the content that Disney produces - movies and television. Whether they're a good match in the real world is a far more complex, nuts-and-bolts question that I'm not equipped to answer.

    3. Re:Required Comment by CrazyLegs · · Score: 1

      The AOL-TimeWarner allegory is an apt one. Comcast believes that with their pipes and Disney's content, magic will happen. This, of course, is crap. Consider that: (a) Disney has no issues distributing content and making money, thank you very much. (b) Disney-owned ABC (which distributes Disney content) is, ummmm, sucking.... Content distribution is pretty easy these days, I think. The real money is actually having something compelling that people want to watch, play, hear, etc. I cannot see any long-term up-side for Disney in any merger like this.

      --

      CrazyLegs

      "Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.

  10. Next stop: Proxy fight by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was already clear that the board of directors wasn't going to like this deal. That's why Comcast went public with their offer, to try to sway the individual shareholders to elect Comcast-takeover-friendly executives and try to take over the board.

    Good luck, Comcast. I think you'll need it...

    1. Re:Next stop: Proxy fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      PROXY FIGHT!!

      More fun than cock fighting, better blood than dog fights. I wonder if it will be on pay-per-view or regular cable?

    2. Re:Next stop: Proxy fight by 0x1337 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can almost see it - Foppish CEO's duking it out in ring with CAT5 cabling, shuriken-shaped IT-management CDs, and full-length PCI-X cards.

    3. Re:Next stop: Proxy fight by PopeJP3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not necessarily true. My company went through this same dance a year and a half ago. The individual shareholders mean squat. It's the institutional investors that count and unfortunately all they care about is money. Disney's unique culture and history don't even factor into the equation. Just like the Comcast bid, when my company recieved the public offer for a stock swap for the company after private negotiations fell through, the board of directors denied it outright because they felt it 'undervalued the company'. 6 months later after the bid had been raised twice they were suddenly singing a different tune about 'synergy' and how wonderful the new company would be. I'm sure they were greedily eyeing their portfolios as well. So say good-bye Disney. It was nice knowing you.

  11. Boring by bartash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The directors of a company have a legal obligation to consider the shareholders of their company. So they will always '...carefully consider any legitimate proposal...' whether they like the sound of it or not. In fact it is hard for the directors to recommend against a sufficiently high offer.

    --
    Read Epic the first RPG novel.
    1. Re:Boring by faitaccompli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell that to the people who owned (or worked for) Chrysler. The board really looked out for their interests.

  12. legitimate by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?

    Sure, if you take it at face value. The reason Comcast's offer wasn't "legitimate" was because it was not Disney's idea to begin with. Disney's shareholders and officeholders will receive a much better deal in an acquisition where every decision-making individual involved can be sure that he will receive his fair share of the loot that flies up in the air and is up for grabs in these situations. That wasn't the case here, where basically Comcast caught Disney off guard, with their lawyers sleeping.

    This is by no means the end of merger-talk between Comcast and Disney. It is the dream of every entertainment conglomerate to someday fuse with every other entertainment conglomerate in existence, and neither Disney nor Comcast can be expected to ignore all that "synergy". Stunts like this are part of the mating ritual. This is the first part of a long mating dance that ends in a new corporate logo, a new round of strange commercials repeating a weird logo that makes no sense, and several thousand layoffs.

    1. Re:legitimate by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      And of course, at the succusful conslusion of any mating ritual - you know that someone's going to get screwed in this case, it's most likely to be the customers

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    2. Re:legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?

      It would, if they didn't consider it carefully. I don't see where "turned down" == "didn't consider"

    3. Re:legitimate by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      " Stunts like this are part of the mating ritual."

      Thank you, I now have a new phrase that I must remember :) .

      That was damn funny!

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  13. Uh, nope on A. by LibertineR · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gates owns 7 percent of Comcast. They've got the money if they need it.

  14. "carefully consider any legitimate proposal" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That phrase is probably a hedge against lawsuits. If the board did not give the appearance of considering offers, then that would leave them open to lawsuits by shareholders for breach of duties.

    1. Re:"carefully consider any legitimate proposal" by nudicle · · Score: 1
      I think that's at least a significant part of the motivation for the statement. Disney looks bad currently what with the whole Pixar thing and Eisner basically forcing a legitimate Disney surname out of the picture. If some wealthy shareholder gets pissed and decides to start a lawsuit, Disney is going to have to demonstrate that it carefully considered legitimate offers to enhance stockholder value rather than just acted like a reactionary bitch.

      IANAL, but if my corporate law class was reasonably accurate, the board has pretty wide latitude under the famous "business judgment rule" to exercise its own discretion but if it starts looking like reactionary bitchery (waste or breach of the board's duty of care to the shareholders especially in the face of a categorically reasonable offer (I have no idea how reasonable Comcast's offer was)) Disney might find itself in real legal trouble. The more Disney actually does or gives the apparance of considering legitimate offers the stronger its "business judgment" protection and the more likely it can make such a lawsuit go away at summary judgment time, which is a heck of a lot better than after a trial.

      Again, IANAL.

  15. As expected... by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The board didn't go with the Comcast offer just because Comcast's bid pushed Disney's share price up. I'm pretty sure that the board will sing a different tune about Eisner once they receive high enough bid.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  16. Sing along kids by ohzero · · Score: 5, Funny

    M I C
    K E Y
    C A B L E
    No mandatory goofy screensavers. Thank you god.

    --
    -- http://www.criticalassets.com
    1. Re:Sing along kids by first.last · · Score: 0

      mandatory goofy screensavers

      ah, finally. justification to switch to AOL

      --
      Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
  17. For background information by ObviousGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just watched Wall Street with Mike Douglas and Charlie Sheen and I finally have a clear idea of what these takeovers are about and how they are executed.

    Basically, the target has some sort of attractive feature which can be achieved by the clever cutting off of unnecessary features. The entity that is attempting to take over the target is trying to get enough control over it that it can dictate the elimination of those unnecessary features. Typically the top tier of management of the target is completely replaced by the takeover entity's management appointments.

    Takeover's aren't attempted because of any altruistic motive on the entity's part. Comcast wasn't interested in making Disney a stronger company, only to milk the Disney company of it's properties and eventually spin it off once it becomes unprofitable again.

    As much as I hate the Mouse, I have to applaud them for sticking up for themselves and successfully resisting this hostile takeover.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:For background information by Gyan · · Score: 1

      Comcast wasn't interested in making Disney a stronger company, only to milk the Disney company of it's properties and eventually spin it off once it becomes unprofitable again.

      Umm, that's the goal of any business enterprise.

    2. Re:For background information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little jaded, are we?

    3. Re:For background information by One+Louder · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Wall Street" was about the takeover market of the 1980's, and doesn't reflect the takeover environment of the 2000's.

      Back then it was common to leverage junk bonds to gain control over companies in order to break them up as you described - nowadays, they're typically misguided attempts at exploiting alledged business synergies, which never seem to actually materialize, AOL-Time Warner being the best recent example.

      While it's true that Comcast's motives are certainly not altruistic (why would they be?), it's very unlikely they want to buy Disney in order to break it up and sell the pieces.

      Blue horseshoe does not like The Walt Disney Company.

    4. Re:For background information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you new to capitalism?

    5. Re:For background information by metlin · · Score: 1, Funny

      LOL! Knew I was gonna see this on Slashdot someday.

      Goes right up there with, "IANAL, but basedon what I read on Slashdot...

      Way to go! Wonder whats coming next?

      I've never had sex, but based on what I hear on Slashdot? :) Geeks!

      *shakes head* *mumbles* *walks away*

    6. Re:For background information by SideshowBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think watching one hollywood movie from the 80s (starring that paragon of understated acting Michael Douglas, no less) can ever give you a clear (or even accurate) idea of how complex things like corporate mergers actually work. Hollywood isn't exactly known for letting facts and logic get in the way of a good story, rightfully so.

      Thats how you end up with flash animations running on a Mac infecting alien motherships with a computer virus.

      What you saw in that movie was a leveraged buyout: a small organization borrowing large amounts of capital to buy a much larger business. The debt is repaid by liquidating assets of the target. Comcast is not a small organization, and the offer that they tendered for Disney was a share swap, so there is no debt to repay and thus no need to liquidate. Not much at all like your movie example. (Not to say that Comcast wouldn't sell off parts of Disney if they did buy them. But it isn't a given, and if they did it would be for reasons other than what you saw in that movie.)

      But then again some people think that they can learn Unix just by watching the girl in Jurassic Park. :-P

    7. Re:For background information by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Others have lambasted you for comparing to Wall Street. Rather than join the chorus, might I suggest that Other People's Money is another take on the theme, with a more humorous bent.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:For background information by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention OPM. I actually didn't have any idea WTF all that proxy voting was about or what DeVito's character was so hated for or what he planned to do with the assets of the company until I saw Wall Street.

      If, as DeVito said in his shareholders meeting speech, that the wire company was obsolete, I couldn't figure out what he wanted to do with it in that case. Wall Street really made it clear what Larry the Liquidator was up to, which wasn't quite clear in OPM.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    9. Re:For background information by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      The last time I saw OPM, it was in an MBA class (finance??), so we all pretty much knew what was going to happen. (And I have a long story about why it's okay to watch movies in your MBA classes.) But I do remember being a bit confused watching it the first time as a teenager.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    10. Re:For background information by Babbster · · Score: 1
      It's really difficult for me to tell whether you're joking or not. The first sentence is obviously hilarious, but then you go on to seemingly try to make a real point based on a movie written and directed by a man who knows f***-all about big business (and is more than a little nuts - love his movies, but he went around the bend a long time ago).

      Comcast doesn't want to cannibalize Disney - I'm sure there are areas that could be trimmed (true of any conglomerate), but you don't "go after" a reasonably healthy and HUGE company in order to break it apart. If you really watched Wall Street, you'd have noticed that Gecko went after companies in real trouble, companies that would go under without big changes or help...A situation that Disney isn't in.

      If you were joking around, then I applaud you for getting me to reply against my better judgement. :)

    11. Re:For background information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pieces to keep for Comcast? ESPN and maybe ABC (Monday Night Football).

      If I were Comcast, I would not want to get into the movie-making and distribution business. Spin that part of Disney off. Of course, Rupert Murcock is doing just fine with all the Fox properties, so maybe Comcast's heads want to be just like him.

    12. Re:For background information by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      "I just watched Swordfish with Hugh Jackman and John Travolta and I finally have a clear idea of what hacking is about and how it is executed.

      Basically, the target has some sort of computer security which can be broken through by the clever use of a computer. The entity that is attempting to hack the target just need a hot Halle Berry to perform a blowjob during the deed".

      Really dude. About as much sense.

    13. Re:For background information by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Please do tell, I for one would be interested in hearing your (long) story...

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    14. Re:For background information by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      check your email.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  18. Yay! by n0nsensical · · Score: 5, Funny

    "So your offer's been rejected, congratulations, Comcast! What are you going to do now?" "I'm going to Hostiletakeoverland!"

    1. Re:Yay! by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somebody seems to have missed the "Your market cap must be this high to aquire this company!" sign over there... Comcast will have to come back when it's older.

    2. Re:Yay! by n0nsensical · · Score: 1

      Hey you just need to convince a couple of large shareholders, it's easy! ;-)

  19. What is really missing... by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

    Disney use to, and maybe still do if you pay for it, give out Disney Character Stock Certificates. Grandparents would by them for their grandkids, to start them saving, and made great artwork.

    With a Comcast take over, they need to special out that they are going to reform under the name of Disney. Giving new hope to the to the old art work.

    Besides who would go to Comcast World?

    1. Re:What is really missing... by ruprechtjones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Besides who would go to Comcast World?"

      Maybe the same people who go to 3Com Stadium, or Safeco Field, or Busch Seaworld, or...

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
    2. Re:What is really missing... by CrazyLegs · · Score: 1

      You can still get the Disney stock certs suitable for framing. Each of my kids has one and they are quite attractive pieces of artwork. Check out www.oneshare.com if you're interested. P.S. As a shareholder, you also get Disney's annual report - which is always and interesting read. AND.... you get to vote out Mr. Eisner!

      --

      CrazyLegs

      "Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.

  20. so much for the elegance of recursion.. by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1, Funny

    You think they would have gotten further with their Mickey Mouse offer for Micky Mouse! I wonder if the board wore their Micky Mouse ears while carefully considering this "legitimate proposal".

    As far as what they meant by "Legitimate Proposals"
    M-I-C: See you real soon!

  21. Disney is about culture--comcast isn't by Riomaggio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The general public usually forgets that the best mergers are not just about money (and stock price) they are also about synergies. The potential merger with Comcast brought some synergies to the table (an outlet for Disney programming and cheaper advertising space). But ultimately, the key synergy is missing: Disney's focus on family entertainment.

    To the external public, Disney is the ultimate family company. The ability for Disney to remain a reconginized name in family entertainment is crucial to its continued success. What does Comcast bring to that image? A merger could potentially dilute the image that Disney has worked decades to develop. (In accounting terms: Disney has a LOT of Goowill).

    What's ironic about all of this is that Disney's external image and internal culture are so different. Many former employees have complained about it being a glue factory (i.e. hire people and use them up). Benefits, especially family benefits, are not as competitive as other companies in the industry. And most importantly--Disney no longer creates most of its content--almost all of it is outsourced to other organizations (i.e. Pixar) or just re-telling of old Disney stories (Cinderella, etc).

    1. Re:Disney is about culture--comcast isn't by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When Mike Jitlov worked for Disney doing special effects, he found their culture so regimented and stiff that he started calling it "Mauswitz." This started to catch on, but the PHB's made it a firing offense. He then changed it to "Duckau," which was, oddly enough, acceptable.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Disney is about culture--comcast isn't by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait a second. The Walt Disney brand has a ton of goodwill associated with it, but I'm not quite sure that the company that trades under the DIS ticker symbol can say the same. Afterall, it's responsible for Miramax and Touchstone pictures. The Disney brand can't put out an R-rated movie, but the Disney company certainly has ways to do so. The Disney culture certainly doesn't run through the ABC TV division of the company. ABC is all over the map when it comes to what kind of content it will distribute, like a good broadcast TV network should be.

      So, when it comes down to it, what people think of when they hear the word "Disney" is only a part of the overall company at this point. Disney may have aquired so much under Eisner that it's having a hard time controling itself. I'm not sure Comcast can do much of a better job, but I'm sure they want to try...

    3. Re:Disney is about culture--comcast isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      started calling it "Mauswitz."

      Hmm, the phrase "Mickey's Mafia" just found a replacement.

    4. Re:Disney is about culture--comcast isn't by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      In all likelihood, Comcast-Disney would do everything it could to maintain the Disney brand. Probably the most you would see change about the Disney-branded resorts and films would be an increase in advertising for Comcast services. On the other hand, Comcast could benefit greatly for its own services from controlling Disney, if it plays its cards right. Disney not only owns its own brand of television products (mainly the Disney Channel), but it also owns ABC (along with a couple dozen affiliates), ESPN, and partnership in other cable channels like A&E, The History Channel, and Lifetime. Comcast and Disney already share an interest in E! Entertainment. Picking up other related brands like Miramax and Touchstone could strengthen Comcast as well.

      None of these brands will change, just the controlling entity would. I seriously doubt that they would make efforts to blur the lines as AOL/TW did, because there would be no benefit to doing so, especially when, as you say, the "Disney" name carries such weight with families.

    5. Re:Disney is about culture--comcast isn't by spaic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Auschwitz, Dachau. WW2 nazi concentration camps

    6. Re:Disney is about culture--comcast isn't by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He then changed it to "Duckau," which was, oddly enough, acceptable.

      I doubt that it was really "acceptable", but though management got away with quashing Mauswitz, when the second name came along they probably realized this was a game they were bound to lose. Continuing to ban an unending supply of new derogatory words would just make them look stupid and even more fascist. A smart person would have realized this with the emergence of the first word, of course.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  22. Why The Offer wasnt worth it anymore..... by rveno1 · · Score: 1

    Due to the Recent runup of disney's stock the Comcast offer is not worth it for any disney shareholder.

    Secondly The offer should be looked over carefully because the disney shareholder is getting an equivalent stock (with some conversion in comcast stock) [this part can be argued]

    From what I understand disney has hired some investment bankers to look at the prospect of being sold (to any company)

    I expect that at the end of this mess disney will be flying solo with a slightly elevated stock price

  23. Re: Comments by bmiller949 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where are all the corn-ball comments about it being a Mickey Mouse deal and that it is just f***ing goofy.

    It seems insurmountable for any organization to manage such a behemoth like Disney. Even, Disney itself.

    --
    <sig>no sig</sig>
  24. Just because Gates has an interest in Comcast... by i)ave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... doesn't mean he's going to spend a limitless amount of money for Disney, or that he even seriously wants Disney. For all we know, he told the board exactly how much they could bid for Disney before he gets pissed and votes his 7% against the whole proposal.

    --
    -- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
  25. Do senators come with the purchase price? by Sabalon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do the senators that disney keeps buying to extend the copyright periods come with this deal or will Comcast have to purchase them seperatly?

    How about Phil Collins and Elton John?

    1. Re:Do senators come with the purchase price? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, the Disney congressmen would have been laid off as a result of this merger since the Comcast congressmen can do the work that they were doing too.

    2. Re:Do senators come with the purchase price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hee hee hee! Oh, you!

      Sincerely,
      All the senators of the United States

  26. Microsoft haters should know... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft invested $1 billion in Comcast back in 1997 and owns quite a bit of Comcast.

  27. What right do they have to do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a CPA by any means, but I thought that the whole point of a hostile takeover was that it didn't matter what the board of directors thinks. If the entity doing the takeover can get control of enough stock, then the opinion of the existing directors is meaningless because they're just going to get kicked out anyway. What am I missing?

    Personally, this torques me off. Disney was okay under Eisner for a year or so but they've regressed in recent years, and they've regressed badly. Disney needs to wake up and smell the capitalism. The world of today is not the same as it was five years ago. Today, if you want to survive, you need the kind of resources that a mega-merger like this provides. And I don't see what right the ineffective and outgoing board of directors has to stand in the way of the natural order of things.

    1. Re:What right do they have to do this? by CrazyLegs · · Score: 1

      You're not really missing anything, but the Board does have a role in a hostile bid. Much of that role depends on the votong rights assigned to various share classes that have been issued over the years, and I'm no expert there (I only own a few shares). Generally-speaking, it's incumbant on the Board to provide fair analysis and opinion to the shareholders on any takeover bid (hostile or not). By law, the job of any Board is to serve the interests and rights of the shareholders. FWIW... I agree with you that Eisner must go. I do not believe, however, that Disney needs any merger to survive. Disney is very vertically-integrated in that it produces content, distributes content, manages spin-off licensing, etc. Furthermore, they are sitting on tons of cash. Comcast just doesn't offer any capabilities that Disney does not already have.

      --

      CrazyLegs

      "Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.

  28. Disney:the 800lb gorilla that can't hold a pencil? by newdamage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where is Disney's next big movie going to come from? They've closed down their Florida studio.

    They've lost pixar, and now they're getting in the news not for making animation but for corporate maneuvering.

    Luckily for us at least we still have quality animation coming out of Japan, the rare gems coming from Warner Bros. (i.e. The Iron Giant) and the occasional Dreamworks film.

    Quite personally I'd like to see Disney's slide be used as an opportuntiy for more adult themed animation to break into mainstream US culture, and with the success of spirited away, it's possible.

    --
    ce n'est pas un Sig.
  29. It's at times like these when by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    we must ask ourselves:

    WWWD?

    1. Re:It's at times like these when by irrelevant · · Score: 1


      Oh, you mean this?

  30. I see a business strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If comcast were smart they would have bought up a lot of Disney shares quitly for a couple months and then made the announcement. Since investors bought Disney stocks pushing the price higher there would have been a nice little profit in selling off those stocks. Then, even if the trade doesn't go through you got money out of the deal. Now repeat this same thing a couple times per year and you either grow your company by buying the company or at least unloading thier stocks after announcing the buyout.

    1. Re:I see a business strategy by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nearly impossible to hide that (the strange trading patterns would setoff alarm bells in both govermental and private stock monitoring systems) and once you have more than 2.5 or 5.0 percent of a companies stock you have to report it to the SEC.

    2. Re:I see a business strategy by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      First, it's hard to hide the purchase of enough shares to be worthwhile. Second, over a certain amount, you have to let the FTC know about it.

      But, it's doable, up to a certain point.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:I see a business strategy by PetWolverine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAL, but I think that's called "insider trading".

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    4. Re:I see a business strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it insider trading if the offer is a legit offer?

  31. Um ? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Disney's board of directors today turned down Comcast's hostile takeover bid,

    I thought that hostile takeover meant that Comcast doesn't need Disney's board to accept anything.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Um ? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, a hostile takeover is the process of buying up enough shares so that the group attempting the takeover starts to own enough of the company to make the current board meaningless. As the takeover group crosses ownership thresholds, they start to have enough shares to name their own people to the board of directors.

      If the takeover works, then the takeover interests will own a majority of the voting shares, and therefore will be able to appoint a majority of the board. At that point, the new members of board of directors will overrule and old members left standing, and the new board approves the takeover.

    2. Re:Um ? by nudicle · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Just to add something to your excellent summation, this is why the Poison Pill was created. When the hostile party aquires N share in the company the Poison Pill provision kicks in which effectively dilutes the hostile party's ownership share to levels well below controlling.

      This post of OT in that I have no idea if Disney has Poison Pill protections in place, I just think the concept is interesting.

    3. Re:Um ? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      No, a hostile takeover is the process of buying up enough shares so that the group attempting the takeover starts to own enough of the company to make the current board meaningless.

      Thank you Captain Obvious.

      Seriously though, the process involved with a hostile takeover means that the new owners can do pretty much whatever they want without the previous board of directors having a thing to say about it.

      So back to my original question, how can Disney's board turn down Comcast's hostile takeover bid?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:Um ? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, there hasn't been one yet... to propose a merger to a board you haven't yet struggled to take over is a friendly takeover, the fact it was laughed at not withstanding... Or, to say it another way... Slashdot invoked a business buzzword where it didn't belong in the summary yet again...

    5. Re:Um ? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or, to say it another way... Slashdot invoked a business buzzword where it didn't belong in the summary yet again...

      Exactly. The word "hostile" doesn't even appear in the linked article.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    6. Re:Um ? by Keeper · · Score: 4, Informative

      Disney does not have a poison pill. Once the story broke, a lot of articles remarked about how Disney was an easy target for a takeover for that very reason.

    7. Re:Um ? by humankind · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some might argue that Euro Disney is their poison pill. ; )

    8. Re:Um ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reading this post and all the other ignorant ones clearly shows that slashdotters have no clue when it comes to business concepts - please save yourself from ridicule by not posting any non-geek stories. Stick with what you know.

    9. Re:Um ? by Chump1422 · · Score: 1

      You don'tneed to have a poison pill at thetime of the bid to implement one. Especially since DIS just hired Wachtell, Lipton to defend themselves, who invented the pill, I think they'll be able to use it.

  32. Re:Disney:the 800lb gorilla that can't hold a penc by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    What is "Walt Disney Presents: Miracle" anyway? That seems to be the wave of the future from the Mouse House right now, live action pictures... they still have plenty of resources to produce those.

  33. Re:This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anything, Comcast is going to pay yet more money for Disney, thus potentially edging them closer to bankruptcy :) Thats is - if things don't work out. They could, and this would be a successful venture (Indeed, Merril Lynch essentially called it a match made in heaven). If not, say hello to AOL Time Warner Episode II.

    For what it's worth, I think this deal is a disaster in the making; One of the most important parts of an acquisition, takeover, or merger is how to incorporate the cultures of the two companies involved.

    Disney has a history of independence and a strong, distinctive, and unique culture. Thanks to Michael Eisner, Disney is no longer a theme park company with a little studio; it's mostly a content company. And in terms of content, it's the <I>people</I> who count; that's what Comcast is buying (Besides the hard assets in terms of channels, magazines, parks, etc.) - And hell, even the parks are truly driven by employees who are obsessed with bringing the world's happiest place to each and every person who walks through its gates.

    So, can Comcast, a company with no track record of any "creativity" in the traditional sense of the word...

    (1) Buy Disney against the wishes of its management, and
    (2) Shake things up like they've promised, and
    (3) Tell people who've done a job for a very long time what to do different, while
    (4) Keeping good relations with the bulk of their creative executives and rank-and-file employees?

    I don't think so.

  34. Comcast and Disney together at last! by mrshowtime · · Score: 0, Informative

    Evil Selling Evil to Evil.

    --
    "Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
  35. This is not too surprising by ZuperDee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you think about it:

    1) Disney recently released favorable results at their analysts meeting. This alone may be reason for the Disney board to believe they are worth more than Comcast's offer.

    2) No doubt, it's all about power and control. Eisner has been well known for squashing dissent. I'm sure he won't want to go without a fight. Comcast, I'm sure, mainly wants to get a foothold in the media business, so they can better compete with media/cable conglomerates like Time-Warner.

    3) I wonder if Roy Disney and Stanley Gold had anything to do with this takeover bid. For one thing, the timing is a bit interesting, and I'm sure Roy Disney would probably jump at the opportunity to try to help restore family control of Disney.

    All this being said, I somehow don't think this merger will go any better than a lot of mergers that have happened lately, e.g., AOL-Time-Warner, or DiamlerChrysler.

  36. You may want to... by shigelojoe · · Score: 5, Funny

    plan a whole day for your Comcast World visit. If you want to see Mike the Cable Technician, he will only show up at some time between 9 AM and 5 PM, and you don't want to miss him.

    You'd have to reschedule, and only Jebus knows how long that would take.

  37. A tactical move... by bergeron76 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The reason Comcast went "public" with the buyout information, is because Eisner privately turned down the bid.

    The reason the board turned down the bid, is because they are getting bigger private offers (that we don't yet know about).

    I, however, do know of one "major" media-up-and-coming-conglomorate that is making a bid. (Yes, they already have their own "mouse" [and protocol]).

    MS-NBC-ATT-Viacom-Disney-Studios anyone?

    Here's my prediction of the new MS-MPAA movie formula:

    A love affair will acrue between a wholesome Microsoft user and a debaucherous Mac-using whore. He'll pretend that he cares about her and he'll drive her to the hotel room in his Microsoft-powered-Lotus-Espirit. He'll flaunt her around at big events, like [w]horse races, etc... and she'll realize that she's just a lowly MAC user! He'll undoubtedly comfort her by spending an incredible amount of money to convince her that Windows is better for sluts [that have some form of confidence].

    Using cool special effects, she'll turn out to be an alien and the ATT-Disney Animation-Viacom-Studios fun will begin!

    [I don't want to ruin the ending; but I'll bet you can guess who get fscked at the end of this flick]

    Every day will seem like Independence Day!

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    1. Re:A tactical move... by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1
      MS-NBC-ATT-Viacom-Disney-Studios anyone?
      Viacom is CBS, Disney is ABC, and neither are going to be merging with either [MS]NBC or each other anytime soon. Corporate ire aside, the FCC would never allow one company to operate two of the broadcast networks (they probably wouldn't give Viacom/CBS/MTV permission to use the restroom at this point). Perhaps I'm missing something...
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    2. Re:A tactical move... by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      MS-NBC-ATT-Viacom-Disney-Studios anyone?

      Is this your own wishful thinking or what?
      This would never happen. Free clue: Break apart your hyphenated megamerger. You have three major networks that the government would NEVER allow to merge.

    3. Re:A tactical move... by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      Which ones? I don't think MSNBC should be considered separate entities just because they operate as such in the eyes of the government.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  38. There's still one left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Home on the Range

    Actually, this looks cute, though I don't think I'll spent $8.50 on it.

  39. Re:Disney:the 800lb gorilla that can't hold a penc by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    And Don Bluth, every so often! (He has a remarkably variable-quality portfolio... :)

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  40. ...and losing your place. by tepples · · Score: 1

    M-I-C: See you real soon!

    K-E-Y: Why? Because frankly, Mr. Eisner, I don't like you.

  41. Re:Disney:the 800lb gorilla that can't hold a penc by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you can safely rule out any more attempts at creativity from Warners - they laid most of their feature animation division off after Osmosis Jones, sold off their furniture, etc. Besides, Brad Bird, director of The Iron Giant, is at Pixar now.

    Who did the animation for that latest, forgettable Looney Tunes/Live action feature? I believe a lot of that work was outsourced, just as they did in Space Jam...

  42. Comcast does Porn by crapolene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I havn't seen anyboby comment that Comcast is big into porn and why that might be a reason Disney doesn't want to be swallowed up by them. Just a thought.

    On the other hand Disney does do porn with the ass shots/nudity on NYPD Blue or the R rated movies made by the various movie production companies they own.

    1. Re:Comcast does Porn by Excen · · Score: 1

      I havn't seen anyboby comment that Comcast is big into porn

      Hmmm. . . If this merger were to have gone through, Tyler Durton might have become compliant with the DMCA.

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    2. Re:Comcast does Porn by taweili · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What are you talking about? "Pulp Fiction" was published by Buna Vista which is Disney's movie distribution arm! Disney has no moral, just a clean image to keep for the public.

    3. Re:Comcast does Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The name is Tyler Durden

      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000093/

      Bingo!

  43. Upon consideration . . . by CleverNickName · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought they did consider it... just because they rejected it doesn't mean they didn't consider it, right? :P

    Well, Disney must have looked at the offer, and rejected it because it was clearly . . . Mickey Mouse.

    Thank you. Thank you. Try the overpriced hamburgers and soggy fries while you wait to ride Splash Mountain.

    1. Re:Upon consideration . . . by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      I think I'll just tip my waitress and help myself to the buffet, thankyouverymuch ..

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Upon consideration . . . by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Thank you. Try the overpriced hamburgers and soggy fries while you wait to ride Splash Mountain.

      Ugh, you're not kiddin'. My son is comming along sometime late may / early june this year, so I guess I should be saving up for the Disney World vacation that's probably 4 years away.

      Last time I was there, tickets cost ~$50, and that just got you in the door. I hadn't done this without parents before; when I decided to go with friends, I thought I could get away with it for the price of the ticket + minimal cost for a souvineer to prove i'd been there. Nope. Mickey Mouse shaped pizza, aprox 5 inches in diameter = $8, medium soft drink = $3, blah blah.

      I think the park exists as a way to get people to buy the food.

      Ah well, I guess I'd better start saving now.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
  44. The bid was testing the waters by Dark+Bard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Traditionally a hostile bid would be inexcess of the stock value unless the stock was over valued and mired in debt. They were formally asking if the board would take a legitimate offer seriously in a public and open fashion. Disney's response was they would take a bid that benefited their shareholders very seriously. It's like a suitor asking coyly if he happened to propose marriage would the offer be accepted or rejected? The stock just upped the anty but I'd be surprised if they didn't respond with a bid that was $3 to $5 dollars a share over current value. Even if the stock jumped by that much in the meantime Disney might go for it since the increase was a short term reaction to the offer and would likely drop again in the coming months. It's very telling that they stated public interest. Eisner might want to pack a few boxes and load up on office supplies.

  45. MOD WESLEY UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not because he's funny, but because he's famous.

    Oh wait, his real name is Wil Wheaton. That's right.

  46. good good good... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, I hope this merger goes through. For one, it'll sink Comcast so far in debt that investing in Time Warner stock will be considered a good investment among media companies. Second, Comcast will quickly dump the "ABC" Family Channel. It does not fit into the Disney/ABC content at all and was a stupid purchase to begin with. Third, Comcast might chuck the Disney animation channel and merge it with Time Warner's Cartoon Network, similar to what happened with the Comedy Channel and Ha many years ago (thus becoming Comedy Central). Fourth, the FCC and FTC might step in and make Comcast shed some of its cable markets. Ode to get Time Warner Cable here in Sacramento instead of Comcast. To think our city fathers passed on Warner/Amex Cable so many years ago because Warner didn't want to pay for our idiotic community access channel studios. To tell the truth, this cable market hasn't been good since AT&T Broadband got swallowed up in that monstrosity that is Comcast.

    If we had Time Warner Cable here, we'd probably have VoIP service through the cable company itself instead of through third-parties such as Vonage. We could have AOL or Earthlink as our "native" cable modem ISP instead of having to pay for email service through Comcast that probably none of us use (lets see, it was @home.com, then it was @attbi.com, and now its @comcast.net, great track record!). I also suspect my market would also have a greater emphasis on HDTV deployment and while it isn't TiVo, at least Time Warner Cable would offer some DVR options, unlike Comcast (and they even own a chunk of TiVo stock!).

    So, for my very own selfish local reasons, I hope this convoluted merger goes through! May Comcast harvest the energy derived from the synergy of the AOL Time Warner merger! :)

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    1. Re:good good good... by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, if the purchase is through a stock offering, how would it put Comcast in debt?

      Second, how would Disney Animation Network and Cartoon Network merge, since they wouldn't be owned by the same company? As you've said, CN is a TimeWarner company.

      My favorite local gov't cable shenanigans is that my county finally started charging a local franchise fee. And rather than taking that money, they handed it over to Comcast!

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:good good good... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "First, if the purchase is through a stock offering, how would it put Comcast in debt?"

      Who says in the finale that it'll all be settled through stock? To sweeten the offer, Comcast will have to offer a mix of cash and stock to entice the Disney shareholders. Add to the fact Comcast already is in debt $30 billion.

      "Second, how would Disney Animation Network and Cartoon Network merge, since they wouldn't be owned by the same company? As you've said, CN is a TimeWarner company."

      The combined channel would be co-owned by Disney and Time Warner, just as Comedy Central had been co-owned between Time Warner and Viacom up until early this year ever since the combination of Comedy Channel and Ha. It would be in the best interest of Comcast because they would chuck a legacy Disney channel with little value with a merger with the biggest cartoon channel currently and it would also free up bandwidth and increase licensing fees from the other cable and DBS providers.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    3. Re:good good good... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Didn't know that Comedy Central was co-owned. Also didn't know that Comcast and TimeWarner were so willing to work together. Thanks.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:good good good... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Didn't know that Comedy Central was co-owned. Also didn't know that Comcast and TimeWarner were so willing to work together. Thanks"

      It is a plausible scenario. I should state it was last year that Time Warner finally sold out its 50% stake in Comedy Central back to Viacom, over strong protest from Ted Turner. Richard Parsons, the CEO, was under pressure from institutional shareholders to reduce debt. To me, it was laughable because AOL Time Warner had about $25 billion in debt, and that was in 2003 dollars. Time Warner itself has consistently had a debt above $20 billion ever since Time acquired Warner Bros. back in 1989/1990. Its rather hypocritical of the market if you ask me, considering Comcast still has $30 billion in debt, does not have a major motion picture studio, does not have the #1 ISP in the world, does not have a publishing empire, and does not have the amount of cable or broadcast channels and interest that AOL Time Warner has. Since last year, the market has forced Parsons to drop the "AOL" from Time Warner's name, made him sell off their in-house CD and DVD manufacturing operation, put a for-sale sign up for Warner Books, sold off Warner Music (WEA - Warner Elektra Atlantic) to private investors, sold off their stake in Columbia House to private investors, sold off the 50% stake in Comedy Central, and given lip-service to spinning off Time Warner Cable in an IPO since the current valuation of Time Warner stock does not even take into account how much Time Warner Cable or AOL is worth on their own. Great stuff. Oh, I should also mention the market basically dictated that Parsons force AOL to settle its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft last year for a measily $750 million when they were suing for $10 billion (which would've been trippled in court if they won). Stupid short-term stockholders...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  47. not accepted != not considered by RiscIt · · Score: 4, Informative

    One interesting quote released by the board is that they will, '...carefully consider any legitimate proposal...' Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?"

    umm.. no. It means they didn't accept it. They still considered it. AFTER considering it, they decided not to accept it.

    Consider v. - To Think Carefully About

    1. Re:not accepted != not considered by Henry+Salt · · Score: 1

      I believe (but I'm not a lawyer, YMMV etc.) that any board of directors has a fiduciary responsibility to consider any proposal. After all, legally, they're representing the shareholders. Of course, they might hate the very idea of a take over, and the "consideration" may be perfunctory. But they have to at least go through the motions.

  48. Comcast and Pixar joint will topple M.E. by ITR81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm willing to bet Jobs will join forces with Comcast to take back Disney from M.E. or Fox News said today Pixar could get the money to do buyout of Disney. Either way Eisner is on his way out.

  49. Re:this shareholder MIGHT vote for good CCast bid by Helen+O'Boyle · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Quick hint: For more info on the situation at Disney from two former longtime board members, see http://www.savedisney.com

    I've been a shareholder in DIS since the 1970's and have weathered other potential takeover storms.

    The reason this one is different from the one 20 years ago is that I think the potential buyer has in mind the protection of the longterm value of the Disney brand and its associated assets. This brings benefit to shareholders beyond any premium in share price that might be offered. (If you don't know, many shareholders are somewhat concerned that the current Disney management team is focusing more on short-term profits than long-term value ... and if you need a lesson as to why that's not the best approach, I'm guessing you're not an ex-dot-com'er.)

    In the case of the animation business which has arguably languished lately (closure of animation facility in Florida for example; also a focus on computer rather than hand animation), Comcast seems interested in bringing it to the forefront again. Whether that be through further investment on their part, or selling it off to a creative company like Pixar which could make the most of it, I can only see positive results compared to what's been going on recently here.

    In the case of the theme parks, which have experienced reduced maintenance budgets and a serious slowdown in the number of new "big ticket" attractions developed in the past 5 years or so, again I can only see that a change would bring better stewardship of key company assets. Even if it meant selling off or leasing for operation the parks to a company like Six Flags, asking myself if "will the standard for the parks as it currently exists be lowered or raised?", my gut reaction is that it will at worst stay the same.

    Anyway, usual caveats here -- not speaking on behalf of ANYONE except myself, and yes, I'm a stockholder in DIS who's in it for the long haul

  50. The borad is comprised of Eisner's Lackeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Disney's board of directors today turned down Comcast's hostile takeover bid, reports MSNBC. The board expressed confidence in Eisner's leadership.


    I've been hearing, for years, from people in the disney organisation about Eisner's childish tactics and thirst for power. The board is comprised of his yes men, they will do what he says. Roy Disney as much as said this in his letter of resignation http://savedisney.com/letters/ The other items in the letters section of Roy Disney's website http://savedisney.com will reenforce this.

    Many of the problems now being publically brought up by Roy Disney and Stanley Gold are ones that I and people familiar with the internal workings of the Disney creative machine have been voicing for years. Eisner's got to go, for the good of the company.

    I don't want to see Disney swallowed up by a large corporation. There's still time to turn it around and save it, but I do not beleive this will happen. I, personally, beleive that Disney will eventually be bought. I didn't expect it to happen, or even be contemplated, this soon, but I believe it is inevitable unless Eisner is outted and the company drastically changes course.
    1. Re:The borad is comprised of Eisner's Lackeys by sammaffei · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ...Disney swallowed up by a large corporation

      Pardon me, but Disney IS a large corporation. And, has done quite a bit of swallowing itself.

      Let's go back to the "Love Bug" and "Apple Dumpling Gang" days, please

      --

      Political correctness is the newest form of slavery.

  51. Eisner said no cause.. by jefdiesel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Because he thinks the Comcast board, as well as Steve Jobs and Roy Disney are all Shite Muslims

    Watch for Mickey to deny this later, then we know its true!

    --

    I hate spyware and spies
  52. wait and see on Disney by humankind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Between Comcast's attempted hostile takeover and Eisner's complete alienation of most of the core historical Disney management team, I reluctantly decided to dump all the Disney stock I had and take advantage of the inflated stock price. Eisner may have been able to help Disney over some rough times, but his style and approach is not good for Disney in the long term. Consequently, Comcast having majority ownership in the company would be an even greater disaster. This all signals to me that Disney is in for a dark period.

  53. Re:This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    > ...who are obsessed with bringing the world's happiest place to each and every person who walks through its gates.

    Sounds like hell on Earth to me.

  54. It's not aboout legitimacy, by canadiangoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not thast they thought Comcast's bit wasn't legitimate, it's that it wasn't high enough.

    --
    Never eat more than you can lift -- Miss Piggy
  55. History Repeating Itself? by ewhac · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is not the first time this has happened to Disney.

    Back around 1980, Disney was having trouble. They hadn't had a hit movie in years, and the newly opened EPCOT Center wasn't the big tourist draw that had been anticipated. The sharks on Wall Street were beginning to circle. A speculative investor named Saul Steinberg attempted a leveraged buy-out of Disney. Disney tried many strategies to fend him off, and ultimately ended up paying him to go away by buying back his shares at a premium price (known on Wall Street as, "greenmail").

    Realizing that there was nothing preventing this from happening again, the board took drastic measures. They discharged the CEO of Disney, Ron Miller, and replaced him with... Michael Eisner. Eisner, together with Frank Wells, rebuilt Disney into the powerhouse that, paradoxically, was always there.

    Today, we find that Disney hasn't had a hit movie (of its own) in years, and Disneyland California Adventure hasn't been the big tourist draw that was anticipated. And while a third-rate cable company with delusions of grandeur hardly conjures up the same sordid imagery as a soulless Wall Street raider, the similarities between Disney's situation in the early 1980's and now are eerie. Right down to Roy Disney's displeasure with the whole situation.

    For a more complete story of what happened, go find yourself a copy of the book Storming The Magic Kingdom . Sounds like Eisner could use a copy right now...

    Schwab

    --
    Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
  56. Re:Disney:the 800lb gorilla that can't hold a penc by qtp · · Score: 1

    they laid most of their feature animation division off after Osmosis Jones, sold off their furniture, etc.

    Warner has not had an permanent animation division since 1962, when they closed that department and laid off the most brilliant American animator to ever hold a brush.

    --
    Read, L
  57. Re: Comments by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a deal that's fucking Goofy be a Minnie Mouse deal?

    --
    I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
  58. Evil vs Evil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both companies are all about breaking the deals they make with their customers and public.

    But Comcast does lay out a lot of money to Disney. As do most cable providers. Which could then be paying Comcast to help take them over and become yet more evil while increasing the amount of cheap christian crap, paid programming, and shop at home channels as the quality of their "product" and delivery of it, ever dwindles increasing only in price, and faster than the rate of inflation.

    Eisner is a sack of shit. May he drive through Ohio on his way to hell. My complicated task in all this is to sort out who I hate more, or to just say "fuck it all" and hope that Comcast succeeds brilliantly in their gamble. Thus becoming a bigger villian and in so doing perhaps cause legislators and the courts to revisit intellectual property laws in a more sensible fashion, or hasten the revolution.

  59. The Economist article on topics from parent by sien · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Economist has an article which outlines what the previous post describes and describes how Mr Eisner is now probably the problem.

  60. Does this mean that they did not believe? by msimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?

    Thats business speak. It just means it wasn't enough (big enough, good enough, whatever) not that it wasn't legitimate (given enought greenbacks almost anything becomes legitimate;-)).

    --
    Quack, quack.
  61. Oh shucks... by shadowmatter · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, I was kinda looking forward to this: Since Bill has a stake on Comcast, maybe he could have gotten some of the rights to Disney cartoon characters, and incorporated them into Windows?

    Imagine if every time an application crashed, the Rescue Rangers came and helped you restart it.

    Or replacing Clippy with Donald Duck, and then buying the Donald-to-English translator for only $49.95.

    Or instead of seeing that horribly drawn comic dog in the Search menu, we actually got to see an animated Pluto?

  62. Wait a second... by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The board "turned down" a hostile takeover bid? Isn't the whole idea of a hostile takeover that the current board doesn't want to go along with it? If the board agreed, then it would be more of an "amenable takeover" or something.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:Wait a second... by WebGangsta · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's not a "hostile" takeover bid until Comcast appeals to current Disney shareholders directly and offers them cash/stock for their shares, with the ultimate goal of Comcast purchasing and owning enough shares of the company to make direct changes to the board and/or have other immediate influence.

      Keep in mind the timeline:

      1. Comcast talks to Eisner and proposes a "merger".
      2. Eisner, without consulting with the board or mentioning it to shareholders, declines.
      3. Comcast goes to the press in order to be sure that the Disney board and shareholders are aware of Eisner's refusal
      It ain't hostile yet. Comcast has been surprisingly calm in their discussions with the press, but I do agree with Disney's assessment that the bid was a little low... which is not unusual for an initial bid.

      While Roy has been noticabley quiet over his support of the Comcast deal (other than noting that it jibes with his own comments on Eisner), Pixar has said that if Comcast were to pull the deal off that they would be more than happy to reopen negotiations.

      More interesting is SFGate's article about Pixar's interest in the deal:

      Pixar Animation Studios may consider forming a consortium of investors to submit a counteroffer to Comcast Corp.'s $54 billion bid for the Walt Disney Co., according to the Times of London.
  63. Especially Less Eisner? by bettiwettiwoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Judging by, among others, these articles in Slate (here and here); these articles regarding an Eisner biography (here and here); this little gossipy titbit; and this critical letter of resignation from Roy E. Disney, the dissatisfaction with Eisner seems to have been brewing for quite some time.

    --
    The liver is evil and must be punished.
  64. RE: by D'Sphitz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?

    Does this mean you didn't read the article which you yourself submitted (which explains perfectly out-of-context quote)

  65. Expect some intersting action soon. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Malone is still smarting from what TCI/ATT did( sold to comcast rather than sell ot him or IPO it). Now he has to deal with the likes of roberts. I expect to see him jump in on this and team up with Disney on this.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  66. Korea. No, seriously. by dbirchall · · Score: 4, Informative
    2002's "Lilo & Stitch" was a non-Pixar Disney project, animated, fairly well-received and a box-office success. The follow-on, "Stitch: The Movie" was a direct-to-DVD vehicle about an hour long created solely to set the stage for some (probably on ABC) children's cartoon about Stitch and Lilo. We've got it on DVD and a huge chunk - if not all - of the animation was farmed out to shops in Korea.

    Outsourcing doesn't just happen in I.T. of course...

  67. Have /. editors been journos too long? by jazman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh dear oh dear. Looks like the /. editors have been journos too long and are making stupid simple logic errors normally only made by n00bs and CEOs. Get back into coding chaps and sharpen up your logic skills.

    > they will, '...carefully consider any legitimate proposal...' Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?

    Duh. No of course not. They carefully considered it, then rejected it. "Carefully consider" does not mean "accept." If they had said they will ACCEPT any legitimate proposal, then, and only then, can you deduce that they didn't believe Comcast's offer to be legit.

    1. Re:Have /. editors been journos too long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Whatever! Mod this post up, it's the freakin' truth. And the truth is never flamebait.

      When people make bold (or hyped) statements on the front page of Slashdot, why shouldn't they be questioned? When a publication portrays itself as a legitimate news outlet, it should expect to be held to the same standards as other news outlets, even if they're user submitted stories -- the editors _are- ultimately in charge of what's posted.

      Anyway, jazman, you've been wronged. I wish I had some mod points today.

  68. wow by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

    For a minute I thought that I was over at cnn's money section. After readig through several comment s I forgot that I was on a geek web page....we sound like a bunch of business men here. Nice to know that geeks do actually understand ( or make and attempt to understand ) issues of finance instead of only bitching about how much money one single man has accumulated.

    Maybe soon that slashdot community will all become fools over at the fool.com....that would be an intersting slashdot effect.

    --
    what?
  69. Dont forget, comcast world requires a month in adv by mackermacker · · Score: 0

    comcast world also requires you settle your bills 1 month in advance. have fun.

  70. And in yesterday's news... by WebGangsta · · Score: 2, Informative
    The Hollywood Reporter has some interesting analysis of the whole proposal.

    Two key points:

    • Comcast will probably up their bid to around $30 per share (or perhaps include more cash instead of a simple stock swap). Analysts don't support a stock price much higher than that.
    • Disney board members were hit with at least a half-dozen shareholder lawsuits filed in Los Angeles Superior Court late last week. The suits claim that Eisner, Disney president and chief operating officer Robert Iger and the rest of the board breached their fiduciary duty by failing to give adequate consideration to Comcast's offer in order to entrench themselves in their jobs.
    So should Comcast walk away if Disney doesn't bite? Perhaps -- no need throwing more money down the rabbit hole (or mouse hole, in this case). Are there others who could make a run for Disney? Let's see.... Viacom has been mentioned, but ignoring the fact that they already own CBS for a moment, they've stated that they're not interested. GE is in the same boat as Viacom, but in the NBC camp. Time Warner is certainly an option, but would have to figure out which movie studio to keep in order to avoid antitrust issues. There's the "we pay cash" option with Microsoft, but that doesn't make sense unless there was a third player involved, and we all know that Microsoft wouldn't want to partner up with Steve Jobs at Pixar.... would they? Hmmmmm....

    (there are other suitors mentioned in the above LATimes link, removal of pants required)

    This certainly will make this next day/week fairly interesting for a few people.

  71. Any Tie to Other SlashDot Article on Super Rats? by cybercreek · · Score: 1

    Maybe Eisner has already undergone the reputed gene therapy and is becoming the super rat.

  72. is the submitter unable to read? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One interesting quote released by the board is that they will, '...carefully consider any legitimate proposal...' Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?"

    No, it means the considered it, and the decision they came to after said consideration is that they weren't interested.

  73. my $.02... by haaz · · Score: 1

    $.05 with inflation..

    I gave a speech almost two years ago on how there were six giant companies controlling 90% of our media. Given the rate of conglomeration, it would be a short time before there were five or four, then three, or less, doing it. I'm not unhappy to see this not go through. Though I am curious how it would do, given how AOL-Time Warner has imploded. hmm! good thoughts, /.ers.

    BTW, my new newspaper is out!

    -- haaz, who'd rather die than give Murdoch control.

    --
    -- haaz.
  74. this is not a hostile takeover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hostile takeover would be company A buying out all of company B's shares without board approval. Get it right slashdot.

  75. It's all about the Benjamins by davenpro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a Disney stock owner, I'm personally glad that Disney did not agree to Comcast's hostile bid. Many analysts and regular shareholders alike (like myself) think that Disney's stock is already undervalued. If Disney had accepted this bid, they would have been accepting much less per share than what their (already undervalued) stock is currently trading for. I do not think that this is an issue about Roy Disney and Stanley gold being "right", I do not think it's an issue with Eisner being the "bad guy", I simply think that at the end of the day all that matters is money. Comcast simply didn't put enough of it on the table, and that is why Disney did not accept the bid.

  76. The "interesting quote" is standard language by msafar · · Score: 2, Informative

    By law, public companies are required to consider "every legitimate offer". In fact, they are required to consider "every offer", whether it's legitimate or not.

    What will be more interesting that what Comcast or Disney do is what the FCC does. The FCC and FTC both should scuttle this deal because when you marry one of the largest cable companies with one of the largest content producers, what you have is a monopoly. Comcast is trying to out-Time Warner, Time Warner.

    The deal is bad for competition, bad for freedom of the press, bad for Disney, and worst of all, bad for shareholders. So who's getting rich off this offer (right now)?

  77. Draft Steve Jobs for Disney? by clu76 · · Score: 1

    I think this site wants Eisner out, and Steve jobs in: Draft Steve Jobs for Disney

    --
    the cosmos in 20 words or less: thumbuki.com
  78. Because what they really waiting for by OpenSourceOfAllEvil · · Score: 1

    is a buyout offer from Microsoft.

    And no, this is not a joke.

  79. Re:Korea. No, seriously. by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

    The Lilo & Stitch TV series is on Disney Channel and ABC.

    --
    End of Line.
  80. Re:Just because Gates has an interest in Comcast.. by Xeed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think he was complled to make the choice because of the failure of @home internet service. They were looking for a new customer base and Disney's 'innocent slate' was a good idea.

    --
    ...don't question it!!!