Home

[Josh]

:x
You're right! People like my family and I, who can't afford a luxury hotel don't deserve to have a nice hotel in a nice place with nice views to the Disney Lake. And of course we don't deserve to sleep near the Parks.  Is that what you mean?

Sorry, no. I don't mean that. Sorry if it sounded rude. What I'm talking about is the poor aesthetic quality and placemaking of the kind of hotels that Disney normally brand as "value hotels" these days. I don't literally mean cheap hotels. Hey, if they have a cheap and great looking lake hotel, I want to go there too! I can't afford a luxury hotel either. The cheapest lake hotel is the Sequoia, but it's got a great story and very cosy atmosphere, so I love it! DLP's current value hotels like Cheyenne are some of the best value hotels Disney have made.

But the current value hotels that Disney make are very tacky, like the All-Stars resorts at Walt Disney World. Art of Animation looks nicer, but it's still a boring rectangular building block behind the paint. Compare that to the uniquely shaped towers of the New York Hotel or the giant triangular roof of the New Port Bay.

^I think he might mean that the cheaper hotels tend to look cheaper from the outside? Which in turn would look wrong on the lake where the three very nice looking hotels are currently. However there is no harm in a value hotel looking great from the outside is there?

Yes, but it should look great on the inside too. But as long as the hotel has a good story (and not just putting stickers of characters everywhere), we can expect the imagineers to make it look pretty good. But you're right, I shouldn't complain until we see concept art. Still, knowing what the Disney of today are like, it wouldn't surprise me if the story of this hotel is just going to be franchises franchises franchises.

[Aladar]

OH, sorry, I misunderstood your words.  :oops:

[peter]

Hi not posted in a while but thought I may as well give my opinion.

This sounds like good news, and hopefully it will convince them to keep taking risks because it has worked out great for them this time. I agree that it suggests the future is a bit brighter

[andrewuk]

A 100 million loss is a 100 million loss and that is a crap result.    Share price has steadily declined since also. And hotel occupancy continues to decline. :cry:

On the positive side they are making a very small debt repayment next year and that ought to be enough alone to give a good chance for a profit next year. And they have also started paying for Ratatouille so that won't be as huge an expense to pay off in the future. Going forward things look better, so hopefully this will be the last statement from the 'crippled by debt' era.  [-o<

[DisneyEuros]

In my opinion, as i have read on some several news about DLP  financial situations,
From the beginning, Disneyland Paris always had and always will have financial problems.
While Bob Iger will try to help and save them, by sending them some financial help from the BIG RICH DADDY (the Disney Company), their situation again will be the same.

Let me explain:
If someone go and investigate the subject in a more depth, they will come out to the conclusion that the Main reason for their "bad financial management" it's of course their "?ureaucratic" financial plan system.
Which they follow as a Country (France).

The French Complicated "?ureaucratic system"is causing them those problems.
Also listen to this one! Greece is following the same financial "French system" and you see the results and what happened to them...
French Financial system sucks. That's it. Period.

On the other hand, the English financial SYSTEM is Much more simple, efficient and powerful!

So, to sum up for all these:
-> Did DLP made a mistake by building a second theme park, the Disney Studios?  My answer is YES
-> Will ever, DPL expands the Original Main Park with Future New Attractions or "New Fantasyland expansion" as Magic Kingdom does? My answer is NO, Never! They simply just can't afford  it.
-> Has Disney Company made the worst decision ever in history,  to choose "Paris" as the final location for the build of the European Disneyland? My answer is YES. Terrible mistake!
-> Is France one of the "Most Expensive" countries in Europe, not to mention, in the World?  My answer is YES. So Tourists can not afford to stay longer in their extremely expensive Hotels, etc...

Did you know that London was a candidate for the position, but Paris finally won? That's so Sad.  :-(

I am Not from the UK, neither my first language is English (its my second Language), But I would definitely choose UK for the European Disneyland. And I am sure and convinced that they will never had those financial problems as France has.

[andrewuk]

But consider this:

Most of the problems were caused by building too many hotels all at once, Disneyland Park itself has always been a strong performer.
Hardly anyone in the UK speaks a foreign language: hiring castmembers who could deal with a variety of European languages would be very difficult, or maybe the continental Europeans would not come in such great numbers.
The weather in London is noticeably worse than Paris, grey dreary days for weeks, months on end are not uncommon. Summers are variable and usually have prolonged cool spells.
There is not so much free space in South East England as in France and the transport network is not as good. Finding a suitable site would be very difficult.
Spending on very large projects is not something UK governments like to get involved in (Channel tunnel rail link and Olympics are pretty much all I can think of in my lifetime.)

[ed-uk]

I've always thought that the UK government would rather let EuroDisney sink in a mire of debt and close than get involved when the company got into big financial problems. The French government has always been much more pro-active in situations like that it seems to me.
British theme parks still close for the winter ( with the possible exception of Blackpool pleasure Beach ) it's so cold, I don't think  it's the same for all European theme parks now.