DisneyKidds
<font color=green>The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mo
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2001
Given the extreme troubles at Vivendi Universal, which seem to keep getting worse by the hour and may have the company ready to divest itself of various business units, can we cull any appreciation for Team Disney out of the fact that they have avoided pitfalls that competitors haven't?
Now before you react, lets look at a couple of things before we say H*** NO! That may be the answer, but lets take it slow.
Vivendi is a direct competitor of WDW in Orlando and has gotten very much credit for investing wads of cash in USF and IOA over the past 3 years when Disney has kept park investment close to the vest. They have created some good stuff that is deserving of, and getting, attention - as evidenced by the current thread regarding the Universal article in the USA Today.
Vivendi is a company that is pulled in almost as many directions as Disney is today. Theme parks, movie studios, music, television, communications and more. Any company as diverse as Vivendi or Disney is going to have to make many investments in multiple business units to keep them all viable. Yes, we could debate whether these company should be so diverse, but lets leave that for another time.
Given that these companies had to make these varying types of investments, many important business DECISIONS (we want to look at those around here right?) that pull the companies in different DIRECTIONS (another focus for us right?), is it telling in any way that one is in true turmoil that threatens the company (while people in the parks are happier than pigs in s***) and the other company, while the stock may be down, is relatively secure (while people in the parks are a little upset at some cutbacks)?
Many think, present company included, that Team Disney has made some mistakes when it comes to some of the investments they have made in the recent past (in the form of acquisitions, buying up rights, motion picture choices, television programming, and more) while curtailing spending at the theme parks. However, Team Disney is running a company that is about more than just theme parks, whether we like it or not. Shareholders, Wall Street, the banks, the analysts - Team Disney has a lot of people they are accountable to. Given the reality that Team Disney may have had to make many of the investments they did (as they saw them as being in the best interest of the company) was there any merit in making the choice to hold back on theme park spending for a while if they believed the other investment were better for the company at the time?
If Team Disney invested wads of cash in the theme parks while making these other key investments (as they saw them), might Disney be in trouble similar to Vivendi is now? If Vivendi spent less on the theme parks over the past three years would they not be overextended as they are and not be in 'grave' danger?
Perhaps we think the focus of Disney spending has been in the wrong place, but they have spent money. At the same time they have kept the company more stable than others in what some consider a challenging business environment.
So, is Team Disney a better steward of all things Disney than they get credit for? Are they the inept morons that many feel they are, or are the truely inept morons at Vivendi, while Disney is weathering the storm?
Thanks Matt for pulling this out - you saved me some time .
An article on Vivendi's current cash crunch. Ouch.
OS article on Vivendi
Here's the text:
NEW YORK -- If the ouster of flamboyant chief executive Jean-Marie Messier was meant to calm the turmoil at Vivendi Universal, it didn't work.
Bond downgrades by rating agencies Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's sparked near-panic selling in Paris where Vivendi shares on Tuesday plunged 25 percent to a 15-year low. The S&P report indicated Vivendi's debt obligation this year is $3 billion higher than many analysts had expected.
Suddenly, investors were less concerned about the media conglomerate's fuzzy strategic focus and management woes than its ability to survive a severe cash crunch. Vivendi's new management now must negotiate at a disadvantage with the big European banks that control the company's future and with potential buyers of properties that may need to be sold more quickly that originally planned, analysts said.
Some of the company's signature properties could go on the block, analysts said, including Universal Studios, Universal Music, French pay-TV unit Canal Plus, and French wireless-phone company Cegetel.
The company has scheduled a board meeting in Paris today, during which directors are expected to address the liquidity crisis and the appointment of Messier's successor. The top candidate is said to be Jean-Rene Fourtou, 63, vice chairman of the French-German drug company Aventis.
But there are more immediate problems. While Moody's dropped Vivendi's credit rating to junk-bond status, S&P sliced it to one notch above junk, with the explicit warning that the rating "would be lowered several notches" if the company does not secure "significant refinancing within the next few weeks."
Vivendi spokeswoman Anita Larsen said the company had no response to the credit agency reports and Vivendi stood by a previous statement that it has enough credit to meet its cash obligations for the year.
Now before you react, lets look at a couple of things before we say H*** NO! That may be the answer, but lets take it slow.
Vivendi is a direct competitor of WDW in Orlando and has gotten very much credit for investing wads of cash in USF and IOA over the past 3 years when Disney has kept park investment close to the vest. They have created some good stuff that is deserving of, and getting, attention - as evidenced by the current thread regarding the Universal article in the USA Today.
Vivendi is a company that is pulled in almost as many directions as Disney is today. Theme parks, movie studios, music, television, communications and more. Any company as diverse as Vivendi or Disney is going to have to make many investments in multiple business units to keep them all viable. Yes, we could debate whether these company should be so diverse, but lets leave that for another time.
Given that these companies had to make these varying types of investments, many important business DECISIONS (we want to look at those around here right?) that pull the companies in different DIRECTIONS (another focus for us right?), is it telling in any way that one is in true turmoil that threatens the company (while people in the parks are happier than pigs in s***) and the other company, while the stock may be down, is relatively secure (while people in the parks are a little upset at some cutbacks)?
Many think, present company included, that Team Disney has made some mistakes when it comes to some of the investments they have made in the recent past (in the form of acquisitions, buying up rights, motion picture choices, television programming, and more) while curtailing spending at the theme parks. However, Team Disney is running a company that is about more than just theme parks, whether we like it or not. Shareholders, Wall Street, the banks, the analysts - Team Disney has a lot of people they are accountable to. Given the reality that Team Disney may have had to make many of the investments they did (as they saw them as being in the best interest of the company) was there any merit in making the choice to hold back on theme park spending for a while if they believed the other investment were better for the company at the time?
If Team Disney invested wads of cash in the theme parks while making these other key investments (as they saw them), might Disney be in trouble similar to Vivendi is now? If Vivendi spent less on the theme parks over the past three years would they not be overextended as they are and not be in 'grave' danger?
Perhaps we think the focus of Disney spending has been in the wrong place, but they have spent money. At the same time they have kept the company more stable than others in what some consider a challenging business environment.
So, is Team Disney a better steward of all things Disney than they get credit for? Are they the inept morons that many feel they are, or are the truely inept morons at Vivendi, while Disney is weathering the storm?
Thanks Matt for pulling this out - you saved me some time .
An article on Vivendi's current cash crunch. Ouch.
OS article on Vivendi
Here's the text:
NEW YORK -- If the ouster of flamboyant chief executive Jean-Marie Messier was meant to calm the turmoil at Vivendi Universal, it didn't work.
Bond downgrades by rating agencies Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's sparked near-panic selling in Paris where Vivendi shares on Tuesday plunged 25 percent to a 15-year low. The S&P report indicated Vivendi's debt obligation this year is $3 billion higher than many analysts had expected.
Suddenly, investors were less concerned about the media conglomerate's fuzzy strategic focus and management woes than its ability to survive a severe cash crunch. Vivendi's new management now must negotiate at a disadvantage with the big European banks that control the company's future and with potential buyers of properties that may need to be sold more quickly that originally planned, analysts said.
Some of the company's signature properties could go on the block, analysts said, including Universal Studios, Universal Music, French pay-TV unit Canal Plus, and French wireless-phone company Cegetel.
The company has scheduled a board meeting in Paris today, during which directors are expected to address the liquidity crisis and the appointment of Messier's successor. The top candidate is said to be Jean-Rene Fourtou, 63, vice chairman of the French-German drug company Aventis.
But there are more immediate problems. While Moody's dropped Vivendi's credit rating to junk-bond status, S&P sliced it to one notch above junk, with the explicit warning that the rating "would be lowered several notches" if the company does not secure "significant refinancing within the next few weeks."
Vivendi spokeswoman Anita Larsen said the company had no response to the credit agency reports and Vivendi stood by a previous statement that it has enough credit to meet its cash obligations for the year.