The official press release:
Quote(Marne-la-Vallée, on 18 September 2012) - Euro Disney S.C.A., parent company of Euro Disney Associés S.C.A., operator of Disneyland® Paris, announces the refinancing Euro Disney group's debt (excluding debt already extended by The Walt Disney Company) with new financing provided by The Walt Disney Company and two of its French subsidiaries, for an overall amount of 1,332 million euros.
The workers' council has been consulted on the transaction and has rendered a favourable opinion thereon. In addition, the consent of all the creditors, necessary to implement the transaction, has been obtained.
The Supervisory Board of Euro Disney Associés S.C.A. met today and approved the transaction.
With this refinancing, the Group's average interest rate on its debt decreases meaningfully and the Group benefits from greater operational flexibility by removing the restrictive covenants under existing debt agreements, notably those related to restrictions on capital expenditures. Moreover, the extended maturity of the total debt to 2030 together with a more gradual debt repayment schedule will better position the Group to invest in long-term growth and drive value for all shareholders. The transaction is expected to close on 27 September 2012.
« This refinancing will enable us to reduce our financing costs and give us greater investment and operational flexibility. This is a key step in the development of our Resort that we pursue for the benefit for all of our stakeholders. I strongly believe this will be highly beneficial to the Company, its cast members and shareholders.», declared Philippe Gas, Chief Executive Officer of Euro Disney S.A.S.
Philippe Gas added: « The Walt Disney Company, with this transaction, reaffirms its continued confidence in Disneyland® Paris which has successfully become, over the past 20 years, the number one tourist destination in Europe, a growth driver of French tourism and an important ambassador of the Disney brand across Europe ».
Source (//http://corporate.disneylandparis.com/CORP/EN/Neutral/Images/uk-2012-09-18-debt-Press-release.pdf)
Quite literally, DLP can now spend money :D
Is this maybe what was meant by the rumor of the WDC takeover?
Or
Is this a step in that direction?
It puts it all a step closer however this basically means they paid off all/most of the debt to allow DLP to spend, or use its money better. I would say its now unlikely they'll purchase DLP.
Many banks don't see maintenance/magic as important as WDW quite rightly does. Share price should go up a bit tomorrow!
YEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!
Wait. Loan!? I'm a bit confused about how this works, but this is how I understand it: EDSCA will use TWDC to repay all of their debt right away and they will then have a more forgiving debt to repay the loan?
I can't wait to see if they begin to profit in Q1 next year! :D
Quote from: "byron-james"Is this maybe what was meant by the rumor of the WDC takeover? Or Is this a step in that direction?
Maybe they saw this as a better alternative?
By the way, what's the difference between a stakeholder and a shareholder?
Forgive me, but surely all this actually means is that it now will owe the majority of the its debts to TWDC rather than the banks?
I can see that this would mean that the interest rate would be controlled by TWDC and therefore can be lower than normal, and would provide DLRP would funds to spend (due to not having to pay the larger interest rates etc), but to suggest that are now largely debit free - would be a mistake?. We now owe TWDC €1.3 Billion (+ withheld royalties etc from past years).
Is that the sum of it?.
Thanks
Iain
Quote from: "ICHAPMAN"Forgive me, but surely all this actually means is that it now will owe the majority of the its debts to TWDC rather than the banks?
I can see that this would mean that the interest rate would be controlled by TWDC and therefore can be lower than normal, and would provide DLRP would funds to spend (due to not having to pay the larger interest rates etc), but to suggest that are now largely debit free - would be a mistake?. We now owe TWDC €1.3 Billion (+ withheld royalties etc from past years).
Is that the sum of it?.
I think you put it rather well. I still would rather have TWDC buy out DLP.
I'm not sure this is positive or negative news, but I really hope the park benefits of this transaction.
Quote from: "Josh"By the way, what's the difference between a stakeholder and a shareholder?
A stakeholder is anyone with an interest in the business Staff (sorry cast members), investors, banks even guests
Fantastic news. Mark this day in your diaries! I think and hope that we can expect Star Wars Land and a big WDS placemaking to be announced relatively soon.
This should be good news, Euro Disney will no longer have their hands tied behind their backs with the covenants now lifted, and be able to spend and improve the park for all concerned. :D
Quote from: "Josh"By the way, what's the difference between a stakeholder and a shareholder?
A stakeholder has an interest in the company, they usually want the best for it as it benefits them (unless they benefit from the decline of the company - not sure what you'd call that?). Employees rely on it for income, suppliers do the same. Customers may need the company for a product or service it provides - just like I need DLP to be in existence in order to breathe and occupy lots of my time 8)
A shareholder is also a stakeholder cos if the company does well the value of their shares increase.
Quote from: "Sven_29"I'm not sure this is positive or negative news, but I really hope the park benefits of this transaction.
This is good news without question I think. It means the speed of debt repayment will not cripple the investment plans the park has. They were due to pay over 400 million in just five years from the press release it would seem that the repayment will now be more even over the years.
You will also remember we kept hearing how the Rat investment was being held up as they persuaded the banks to allow the business to take on the extra debt needed to pay for it. I would imagine this change will make that a lot easier for future investments.
I don't know if this make a buy out more or less likely. Certainly the financial investment need to buy out the shares is a lot less than the 1.3 billion they have just put up. Based on today's share price I think the total value of the shares is about 266 million euros of which ED SCA already own 40%.
If one of the motives to buy out the shares was to have more control over the direction of Disneyland Paris I think this move will have do more to achive that outcome.
I think this should give DLP lots more breathing space with investments and ideas for sure.. ;)
It'll be 'Watch this Space' for share prices, development, investment and imagineering.. ;) :D
If DLP has to be bought out, better it be someone like TWDC, who shares and lives the magic, unlike the banks.. :roll:
So... Eehm...
Are all of DLP's debts now payed off or is the 1.3 billion euros just a fraction of it?
Sorry for this (probably) stupid question, but my economic jargon isn't that good, especially in English... :oops:
Well not a buyout, but wdc owns 40%, edsca owes wdw 1.3 billion, so I have a feeling that it's just a matter of time til wdc buysout. This is good news, but still no changes in management, and I feel that it's the management and debt that have held the resort back. But we'll see, and remember the debts not gone way.....
This solution is way better than buying out the resort. TWDC always had the last word in decisions and appointing the management, so a buyout wouldn't have changed that. In addition the debts would still be with the banks and not with Disney, which is the case now. With TWDC owning the debt it's a lot easier to establish a good repayment plan over the next years. That gives ED SCA more flexibility in investing into the resort. However just because TWDC owns the debt now, doesn't mean it's gone. I'm pretty sure TWDC wants its money back. It just gives ED SCA more time to repay. And €400mio are still with the banks.
Why leave 400mil with the banks?
Quote from: "disney-john"Why leave 400mil with the banks?
Good question..We don't actually know who that debt is with. We just know the total of debt from the annual accounts I don't think it gives a break down of the instituations it is owed to. It could well be this is already owed to the TWDC in some way. You can interprete the press release that the 1.3 billion is all of the debt excluding that owed to TWDC.
Quote from: "dagobert"This solution is way better than buying out the resort. TWDC always had the last word in decisions and appointing the management, so a buyout wouldn't have changed that.
Really good point. People talk about DLRP management as if they are serperate from TWDC. This is not the case and in fact Philippe Gas reports to Meg Crofton who is President, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Operations, U.S. & France.
I don't know of a recent CEO of DLP who has not come from and/or returned to a post elsewhere in TWDC.
When things have gone wrong in DLP you can quite often trace the decission back to the TWDC. Over building of hotel in the orginal build, small scale of WDS, clumsy cost cutting affecting guest experiance all have arguable roots back to TWDC. I personally think things are on the right track and freeing Mr Gas from the constraints of large debt repayments will help significantly. I don't think it will result in a spending spree but a well timed investment programme aim at the growth of the resort.
On the whole this is positive news for the future of Disneyland Paris. It secures the future of the venue and related jobs.
The negative is the impact this will have on EuroDisney SCA. It would now be very straight forward for TWDC to take ownership without having to buyout the shareholders.
A very clever move by TWDC. DLP is safe. New money made available, TWDC get the resort for a fraction of its worth.
well put Ford, smart move TWDC, and I'm far more optimistic about DLP becoming a 21st C resort now.
From looking into it a bit more (on the ft website), EDSCA will now be paying 4% on this debt rather than 5.1%. Obviously 1.1% of 1.3 billion is a lot (143 million of savings just for starters) that this deal will save them. Although I think that removing the covenants is better news as a lot of work needs to be done.
It all sounds like good news to me.
In DLP's situation, you have to spend money to make money. With TWDC on side, they can do this and hopefully move into a better financial situation, which will of course benefit TWDC from their royalties.
In reference to the future, it is an interesting situation. I would assume that TWDC would want to convert their loans into shares at some point, giving them a near majority share and then forcing the rest to sell. However, would the French law allow this? Perhaps this solution of taking over the loans is the next best thing, as they will of course have the same sort of control that the banks previously had and with their sharehold as well, will have a significant influence.
Also, it is worth noting that the new loans are unsecured. They will have paid more for this compared to secured creditors, but perhaps the other shareholders prevented them becoming secured. Therefore, if they pulled the plug and forced EDSCA into administration, they would be the second in queue after any secured creditors that remain, which is a little more complicated, though I doubt it would be an issue. However, would they really want the bad press from the forced takeover?
Quote from: "Adam"I would assume that TWDC would want to convert their loans into shares at some point, giving them a near majority share and then forcing the rest to sell. However, would the French law allow this?
Usually it needs 90% or more of the share capital to squeeze out other shareholders. So TWDC still has a long way to go with its 40% to force us to sell our shares. As long as they don't reach that amount they can't do anything.
I read all this last night and I am soooo happy. Sure it's not a full buyout, but it's still better than nothing! With over 100 Mill being "put in the profit" rather than the banks is amazing, that is enough for an expansion of WDS or even the bring back of shows, parades and spend of royalties to get more new exciting things for the park.
Yay! :D
€100 million doesn't go very far. It would only just cover the cots of Ratatouille.
Quote from: "ford prefect"€100 million doesn't go very far. It would only just cover the cots of Ratatouille.
Yeah like what was said before, it's a start though. Hopefully we'll see a faster development of the resort from the new Villages Nature to the "rumoured third gate"/Marvel-land over the next 5-10 years. :)
Quote from: "dagobert"Quote from: "Adam"I would assume that TWDC would want to convert their loans into shares at some point, giving them a near majority share and then forcing the rest to sell. However, would the French law allow this?
Usually it needs 90% or more of the share capital to squeeze out other shareholders. So TWDC still has a long way to go with its 40% to force us to sell our shares. As long as they don't reach that amount they can't do anything.
I appreciate this - my point is that if they converted their loans into shares, they would have a large percentage of the shares. Even a small percentage may do it, due to the size of the loans. Does anyone know about this area - could this be done and how much would it give TWDC?
Having had a look at the last annual review, it does seem that TWDC has more than 40% of DLP. They own 39.8% of Euro Disney SCA, which is just the holding company. The main asset is an 82% share of Euro Disney Associés SCA, which runs Disneyland Park and Walt Disney Studios Park, Disneyland Hotel, Disney's Davy Crockett Ranch and Golf Disneyland, as well as running the rest of the hotels and village through a wholly owned subsidiary of this company. Therefore, they own 32.8% - but they also own 18% through a TWDC subsidary, so they overall own 50.8% in total.
Quote from: "andrewuk"From looking into it a bit more (on the ft website), EDSCA will now be paying 4% on this debt rather than 5.1%. Obviously 1.1% of 1.3 billion is a lot (143 million of savings just for starters) that this deal will save them. Although I think that removing the covenants is better news as a lot of work needs to be done.
As far as I can tell, you're right about that- since the walt disney company is taking over the terms of debt repayment, they've set a lower rate for each year- effectively meaning that the park is 143m (I got 187m?) euros better off-- which, considering that its net profit last year was -64m, an extra 143 (or 187 million) to play with each year is a bloody good deal! (if they had this last year, they'd have made a profit of 79m (or 123m) euros!
-- bare in mind, im not a financial expert and don't really know what im talking about :-"
Quote from: "ford prefect"€100 million doesn't go very far. It would only just cover the cots of Ratatouille.
But that's already been covered by the credit facility from TWDC. :)
So how much profit are EDSCA expected to receive each quarter, now?
Quote from: "davidrsykes"Quote from: "andrewuk"From looking into it a bit more (on the ft website), EDSCA will now be paying 4% on this debt rather than 5.1%. Obviously 1.1% of 1.3 billion is a lot (143 million of savings just for starters) that this deal will save them. Although I think that removing the covenants is better news as a lot of work needs to be done.
As far as I can tell, you're right about that- since the walt disney company is taking over the terms of debt repayment, they've set a lower rate for each year- effectively meaning that the park is 143m (I got 187m?) euros better off-- which, considering that its net profit last year was -64m, an extra 143 (or 187 million) to play with each year is a bloody good deal! (if they had this last year, they'd have made a profit of 79m (or 123m) euros!
-- bare in mind, im not a financial expert and don't really know what im talking about :-"
It's 143m extra, but like any company showing profit on their books, they still have to turn it into hard cash to benefit.
Quote from: "Josh"Quote from: "ford prefect"€100 million doesn't go very far. It would only just cover the cots of Ratatouille.
But that's already been covered by the credit facility from TWDC. :)
Yes, Josh. You are correct. I am aware of that. :)
However my point was to illustrate that €100million does not go very far and that people should not assume that there will suddenly be lots of pennies to spend because TDWC have metaphorically fished around the back of the sofa and found some loose change.
The primary reasons (in my opinion) why TWDC would take this action are to ensure that EuroDisney SCA will have sufficient funds to pay the licences and to facilitate the easy purchase of Disneyland Paris.
I would not expect a sudden influx of cash as other people have stated.
Quote from: "ford prefect"However my point was to illustrate that €100million does not go very far and that people should not assume that there will suddenly be lots of pennies to spend because TDWC have metaphorically fished around the back of the sofa and found some loose change.
The primary reasons (in my opinion) why TWDC would take this action are to ensure that EuroDisney SCA will have sufficient funds to pay the licences and to facilitate the easy purchase of Disneyland Paris.
I would not expect a sudden influx of cash as other people have stated.
That's how I see it as well. I guess nothing big will happen in the near future. The new arrangement just helps ED SCA to be more flexible when it come to operating the park, but it doesn't provied enough money to invest heavily. As I see it, a major expansion of WDSP has still to be funded with new debts.
If ED SCA wants to invest in the parks, the money should be used for improving maintenance and to hire more CMs. It would also be great if the money would be used to open ALL attractions EVERY DAY from OPENING until CLOSING.
Quote
However my point was to illustrate that €100million does not go very far and that people should not assume that there will suddenly be lots of pennies to spend because TDWC have metaphorically fished around the back of the sofa and found some loose change.
The primary reasons (in my opinion) why TWDC would take this action are to ensure that EuroDisney SCA will have sufficient funds to pay the licences and to facilitate the easy purchase of Disneyland Paris.
I would not expect a sudden influx of cash as other people have stated.[/quote]
I believe it has to do with a buyout....
Haven't quoted right sorry
Quote from: "disney-john"Haven't quoted right sorry
:D
Quote from: "ford prefect"Yes, Josh. You are correct. I am aware of that. :)
However my point was to illustrate that €100million does not go very far and that people should not assume that there will suddenly be lots of pennies to spend because TDWC have metaphorically fished around the back of the sofa and found some loose change.
Oh, sorry. xD
So this could actually make a buyout easier? There's been a lot conflicting reports over whether that is so. So how much time would they need before a buyout is possible?
Theoretically a buyout could happen at anytime. Personally, I don't think a buyout will happen anytime soon.
There are several implications.
1) EuroDIsney SCA has a very complicated structure. The Phase 1 and 2 construction companies are essentially worthless paper entities that hold the debt. This debt is owned by assorted Hedge Funds. They will be after more than their pound of flesh for the debt if a rich suitor such as TWDC comes a knockin'
2) Prince Alwaleed will also be after substantial recompense for having rescued the venue. However, he may stay on a minority stakeholder
3) The small shareholders (like me!) are the losers. We would receive a fraction or even nothing if a surreptitious takeover happens. TWDC would not like the bad publicity.
4) TWDC cannot afford to pay the commercial rate for the shares AND shoulder the debt burden. They would wait until EuroDisney SCA fails naturally.
The more I think about this, the more I am seeing this as a money saving exercise only. EDSCA saves millions. TWDC looks great as a knight in shining armour and saves money if it has to buy out the resort AND starts to earn money from the character licenses. The interest rate is better as TWDC can use their borrowing power to refinance up against a failing currency. For if (when) the Euro fails the debt will be significantly less.
A good move by TWDC, but one which will be a 5 year plus plan before the real reasons are known!
This is very good news, now Euro Disney can repay its debts to the WDC instead of the banks at a more favourable rate of interest, and the company will no longer have to go to the banks to seek approval when they want to build a new ride. It's a shame they couldn't have done it years ago. I still don't buy the buyout theory by the WDC, which I don't think will happen, there is nothing in this annoucement that points to that. And just to add there is no way WDC could just simply take over the shares of Euro Disney.
If ED SCA wants to invest in the parks, the money should be used for improving maintenance and to hire more CMs. It would also be great if the money would be used to open ALL attractions EVERY DAY from OPENING until CLOSING.
could not agree more dagobert!
During the Goldman Sachs 21st Annual Communacopia Conference, Jay Rasulo participated in a question-and-answer session about The Walt Disney Company's financial policy. He was shortly asked about Disneyland Paris' refinancing.
QuoteDrew Borst – Analyst, Goldman Sachs
And maybe one question about Disneyland Paris. Earlier this week there was an announcement of a refinancing. Can you explain what is going on there with them in terms of what their...?
Jay Rasulo – Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, The Walt Disney Company
Sure. Since the early days Disneyland Paris was pretty heavily debt laden as a company. And despite its increasing commercial success, the financial burden on that company was pretty heavy. And there were a number of refinancings. The interest rate was the best one to get in the market at the times of those refinancings, but it still left a pretty complex web of lenders and, more importantly, increasingly complex covenants under which the company had to operate.
And those covenants and the resolving around them spending the capital that you need to spend in the business was a constant drain on management time over there to constantly go back, negotiate waivers to the covenants, explain the operating business to the bankers.
And we finally decided that with the availability of capital to the parent company at great rates that we would refinance, we'd buy in all that existing debt and extend a similar loan to Disneyland Paris at a rate that for them ended up being 100 basis points less than the average rate that they were borrowing at.
And of course being the parent company, and being incredibly supportive, kind of took this issue of covenants out of the picture. So I think it was a strategic decision to allow that business to operate in a less fettered way, or almost an unfettered way relative to what the debt was causing them and the covenants around the debt was causing them to do.
Lowered their cost of borrowing, has not increased our balance sheet borrowing at all because of course we were already consolidating all the debt of Disneyland Paris onto our books. You have read recently what the rating agencies have said about this transaction; it hasn't burdened us with any debt, hasn't changed our rating in the market, hasn't altered our ability to borrow money as The Walt Disney Company.
So I think all around it was a very successful transaction and ended up getting the approval of course of the government because the government was one of the big lenders to Disneyland Paris. The supervisory Board and the Workers Council all agreed that this was a great transaction. So we are really looking forward to providing those guys with clear airspace to do what they have to do to grow that business.
Drew Borst – Analyst, Goldman Sachs
And it seems like you are pretty content with the current structure, I mean, this is a structure that has been in place for some time now. I believe you -- Disney manages it. Do you have control over -- you are the biggest shareholder. Because there has been some speculation in the recent past about that you might want to buy it in. Is there any strategic merit to that given...?
Jay Rasulo – Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, The Walt Disney Company
You know, we -- of course when you look at a major refinancing you have to ask yourself that question, and we did. And we really didn't see any strategic improvement in the business by buying in all of the outstanding shares. Our shareholders have been supportive of the growth of the company and we really felt that the debt was the burden we had to handle.
//http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/investors/events
So apparently The Walt Disney Company has no intention of buying in EuroDisney in the foreseeable future.
I emailed the Shareholders Club and asked what this really meant for the shareholders and the possibility of any buy out.. :)
This was their reply:-
QuoteDear Sir,
Thank you for your e-mail and your interest for Euro Disney.
Please find below further information on this recent transaction.
This transaction will indeed provide a number of benefits to the shareholders and the Company, as this refinancing provides Euro Disney with a lower interest rate and a more simplified financing structure. The Group will also benefit from improved flexibility in operating the resort and in investing for its development.
Furthermore, this refinancing does not have any impact on the ownership structure of Euro Disney and does not involve changes in governance.
Feel free to contact us for any further information.
Yours sincerely,
Euro Disney S.C.A.
Shareholders Club
Then this arrived.. :shock:
QuoteDear Shareholders Club Member,
To better meet the needs of the Shareholders Club Members and offer them a quality service and relevant information on the Company, the Shareholders Club is pleased to announce the implementation of the new « General Conditions of Euro Disney S.C.A. Shareholders Club » effective Monday, October 1st, 2012. We invite you to consult the attached document for additional information.
As of this date, any shareholder would like to become a member or to renew its membership to the Shareholders Club, has to hold a minimum of 100 Euro Disney S.C.A. shares (ISIN code: FR0010540740) in a bearer or a registered form. Members of the Shareholders Club who joined before October 1st, 2000 and who hold a valid membership card, are exempt from this minimum shareholding.
We invite you to consult the new « General Conditions of Euro Disney S.C.A. Shareholders Club » in the attached document.
Please note:
Regardless of the number of shares you hold, you will continue to benefit from the Shareholders Club discount and offers, upon presentation of a valid membership card.
You can then request a renewal of your membership, as outlined in the General Conditions of the Shareholders Club.
Please contact us for any further information.
Yours sincerely,
Euro Disney S.C.A.
Shareholders Club
New membership criteria...
QuoteThe Shareholders Club is only for individual Euro Disney S.C.A. shareholders who own a minimum of 100 Euro Disney S.C.A. shares (ISIN code: FR0010540740) in a bearer or in a registered form. The membership is free and valid for 2 years. Members of the Shareholders Club who joined the Shareholders Club before October 1st, 2000 and who hold a valid membership card are exempt from the membership criteria of holding a minimum of 100 Euro Disney S.C.A. shares. If they hold a minimum of 5 Euro Disney S.C.A. shares, they can renew their membership as outlined in the terms and conditions.
Thanks for posting, Maarten and Javey74.
And there we have it. I guess buying the debt is all they're going to do. And it makes sense. They shouldn't need to do any more to improve the resort. Thanks for posting the info.
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere. According to Le Parisien, the president of the supervisory board, Antoine Jeancourt-Galignani, has resigned. Despite having been with Euro Disney for 23 years and expressing his intent to leave 2 years ago, it also states that he is in disagreement with the direction that WDC wants Disneyland Paris to take.
If it's true at least it means that WDC is taking an active role but clearly this chap isn't convinced of where that'll lead.
//http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/euro-disney-le-president-du-conseil-de-surveillance-demissionne-08-11-2012-2304329.php
Before I read the article, I had a feeling I knew exactly why he left. It says: 'The Walt Disney Company has "substantially" changed its strategy [with] Disneyland Paris. The goal is no longer "the development and profitability of the joint venture in 1989," but "to serve the Group's overall strategy Walt Disney by promoting the widest of its brands and its creations." '
So in other words, Bob Iger wants to use our parks to promote his (and even other companies) brands and franchises; just like he does with the American parks. I know Iger is stepping down in a couple of years, but sometimes I just wish he could leave now.
Sorry for sounding like a sourpuss, but I'm starting to think he's become a worse CEO than Eisner in the way he's treated the theme park side of the business. It's like he sees them as promotions and not for what they are: another medium for storytelling.
I think Bob Iger has turned out to be a good CEO for Disney, he's responsible for Cars Land and Buena Vista Street at DCA, also Avatar Land and the new Fantasyland at the MK. He bought Pixar and Lucas films/ Stars Wars, both highly successful. He refinanced the debts at Euro Disney, which was a great move and should give DLP more freedom to build more rides and improve maintenance.
So I think he has done a good job, and he should promote highly successful Disney owned brands and franchises in the theme parks, he would be a fall not to.
I think he's done a good job everywhere except the theme parks (or at least the ones that aren't in his local Disneyland).
Personally, I don't think Avatar really fits with the Animal Kingdom at all. And you can guarantee he's going to spam Star Wars all over the international theme parks. The That said, the Star Wars mini-land that we're rumoured to get seems quite good, so hopefully Star Wars' presence in other parks won't be more extreme. There's even been talk of an entire Marvel theme park for Disneyland in California's third gate. As for Shanghai Disneyland, Pirates of the Caribbean will be based on the film franchise and Tomorrowland's E-ticket will be based on Tron. As for the resort hotels, the only new ones we've had since he became CEO have all been based on animated films. :)
Everything he does is just franchises franchises franchises. He buys franchises and saturates the parks with them. There's nothing wrong with having some attractions based on films, but when new original stories in the parks become a rarity, it prevents Imagineers from telling their own stories. Do you think we'll ever get attractions like Journey Into Imagination or Blizzard Beach with Iger?
Then again, maybe I've just been listening to American Disney park fans too much. xD
What's wrong with a successful franchise and how does he saturate the parks with them? If Disney just want to stick to the original stories, how could they update the parks and keep them fresh for a new audience. The WDC is a movie Studios and a theme park operator, so we shouldn't be too surprised to find new rides and attractions built on popular Disney films.
I'm not sure what you mean by original stories in the theme parks, because most ideas have to come from somewhere, a book or a film for example. And in the case of TOT an American TV series.
As for the hotels, Walt Disney had as much to do with animation as he had to do with theme parks, in fact he built his reputation on animated films, so should we be surprised to find references to Disney films in their resort hotels, I think not.
Just to add Disney is one of the most famous brands in the world, and if they opened a Disney store in your local shopping centre would you complain about their brands and franchises saturating your town?
Quote from: "ed-uk"If Disney just want to stick to the original stories, how could they update the parks and keep them fresh for a new audience.
Sorry, when I say original stories, I don't mean classic films. I mean their own stories written just for the rides, like Big Thunder Mesa Town or Grizzly Gulch. As I say, there's nothing wrong with having some of their rides based off films; that's how it's always been. But they need new stories as well. When Disneyland first opened, there was about a 50-50 ratio of attractions based on franchises to attractions with their own custom stories.
QuoteAs for the hotels, Walt Disney had as much to do with animation as he had to do with theme parks, in fact he built his reputation on animated films, so should we be surprised to find references to Disney films in their resort hotels, I think not.
I don't mind references (like with our Disneyland Hotel or the Sequoia Lodge after the recent refurb), but they still offer an "immersive experience". On the other hand, these pure character hotels just have statues of characters plastered all over the place and walls with patterns on them. They don't make you feel like you've been transported to another place. If a character hotel just tried to take you to a location in one of the films that's appropriate to a hotel (like maybe a hotel in New Orleans from The Princess and the Frog), that would probably be quite nice, and would offer an experience akin to the Sequoia.
QuoteJust to add Disney is one of the most famous brands in the world, and if they opened a Disney store in your local shopping centre would you complain about their brands and franchises saturating your town?
We already have one right in the middle of our city. My only complaint is that their merchandise is purely for children's toys. :P But a Disney Store can't be compared to this. It's not trying to do storytelling. Theme parks and external Disney Stores have completely different scopes.
I agree with you about the children's toys in the Disney Store these days, there's not enough merchandise for adults.
I don't mind where the idea for a theme park ride/ attraction comes from book, film or original idea as long as the ride is well themed and enjoyable. Ratatouille was an original idea once, OK it started out as a film but it doesn't bother me if they want to turn it into a theme park ride. The same goes for Star Tours, Peter Pans Flight, Snow white, the Tree House, Space Mountain and 20,000 leagues under the sea based on Jules Verne books in Discoveryland.
Quote from: "Josh"like maybe a hotel in New Orleans from The Princess and the Frog
If that was built in Paris I would die happy. Would also be so cool if the Sequoia refurb included references to Pocahontas - unless thats what they already doing?
Sequoia refurb is referencing Bambi isn't it? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Josh, I totally agree with absolutely everything you're saying. The parks need more attractions based off original ideas, we need a new Big Thunder Mountain or Tower of Terror. I'm not saying it has to be an E-ticket but everything over how many years has been completely based off a TV show, film or franchise that Disney own. It's getting a little boring.
I'm getting really tired of the company's use of Toy Story everywhere too. Can we focus on something else now? I love Toy Story as much as the next peep but they've just plastered it everywhere. They seem to be relying on it too much and it's kinda depressing.
I'd love to see a new hotel which isn't based off film/franchise, unless it was done in a subtle way like these current refurbs. I just think the new styles look a bit cheap and tacky which for the price they're asking for just isn't worth my money.
I agree with wanting original rides, but the world is a very different place these days and the Disney parks face very stiff competition, especially from the likes of Harry Potter land, or whatever it's called. Brands get people's very short attentions and if they are targeting families then it's those obvious franchises like Pixar that they will use. If you have a 30 second advert or a print advert, you will get far more reaction if you use a recognised brand than trying to explain that you have a ride that is immersive and wonderful and features characters you haven't heard of but will love once you've seen it. DL and WDW used to be able to sell themselves just on being who they were and what they were, not any more.
My little boy loves Cars and was very excited to see Lightning McQueen and friends in DLP, but it's iasw, POTC and PM that he talks about now he's back. That's great, but they never got his attention before he went, it was the new character brands that did. When deciding on new rides and attractions the ability to market will be a huge factor, and rightly so for any business. It's unfortunate for those of us that love the old classic rides, but I think those days are gone. I think the most we can hope for is that they remain untouched, which for the most part seems to be the case, except POTC.
Quote from: "PirateSteve"My little boy loves Cars and was very excited to see Lightning McQueen and friends in DLP, but it's iasw, POTC and PM that he talks about now he's back. That's great, but they never got his attention before he went, it was the new character brands that did. When deciding on new rides and attractions the ability to market will be a huge factor, and rightly so for any business. It's unfortunate for those of us that love the old classic rides, but I think those days are gone. I think the most we can hope for is that they remain untouched, which for the most part seems to be the case, except POTC.
Having spent time in marketing I couldnt agree more with your comment above, its the big brands that get peoples attentions and drags them through the door so Cars and Toy Story will do just that. Thats probably what will get a lot of people to go for the first time, Its POTC and TOT that will keep them coming back, something they can only experience in DLRP
i totally agree with Josh! I couldn't say it better! Back to original stories!
Quote from: "PirateSteve"If you have a 30 second advert or a print advert, you will get far more reaction if you use a recognised brand than trying to explain that you have a ride that is immersive and wonderful and features characters you haven't heard of but will love once you've seen it.
I'm not so sure. ;)
[youtube:zpy0janq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDXxOs5clc[/youtube:zpy0janq]
But I see your point. Big E-tickets like Big Grizzly Mountain are the easy ones to market. Remember the original Space Mountain adverts? It didn't even show the coaster itself; it just shows the enormous structure and implied the story that you're going to get shot at the moon. But that's how new lands are always built: a few minor rides and one big E-ticket.
I have to say that that advert did noting for me, but then I don't like Coasters. It looked like an Alton Towers advert, which would be fine for Alton Towers, but I don't think if you showed that on UK television with Big Thunder Mountain branding that it would get many people rushing to book holidays to Disneyland Paris. These kind of adverts are fine for domestic campaigns to draw day visitors, but I don't believe in today's world they are strong enough for international campaigns to entice people to book holidays.
I've not seen the Space Mountain advert, I'll have a look on YouTube.
UPDATE: Just seen the SM advert, very good. Be interesting to see what kind of response that would get these days. Interesting to see so many people comment that the advert was on the old Lion King video.
All Disney theme park fans know about Space Mountain. Anyone who had been to WDW or Disneyland would already know of it, It was hardly a new, original ride that they were marketing in 1995, that's why they called it Space Mountain and not Discovery Mountain, which I think they had originally intended to do. The DLP version of Space Mountain is a new take on an old 1970s roller coaster ride with a Jules Verne theme. and many Disney fans would of expected to find Space Mountain at DLP when it first opened, but it wasn't.
The Same goes for Big Grizzly Mountain at HKD, it's just a fresh take on BTM with a new back story, and Grizzly Gulch a new take on Frontierland. And it's great that Disney do that.
I'm not a fan of Space Mountain, but I love Frontierland and BTM is one of the few roller coaster rides I do like, no Disney theme park experience would be complete without a Land or Gulch with Western theme. But Cars Land at DCA is an original Land, different from anything Disney have done before in their parks, rather than just churning out another version of Space Mountain or a land with a Western theme. And just because Cars Land is based on one of Disney's own films, it makes it no less successful than the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at IOA.
In my opinion, as i have read on some several news about DLP financial situations,
From the Very beginning, Disneyland Paris always had and always will be having 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 Management 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(UK) was a candidate country for the position, to build the European Disneyland, 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 the UK for the European Disneyland. and I am sure and convinced that they will never had those financial problems as France has.
Usually I don't post here that often anymore, but after reading the post above, I had to write my two cents. Recently I had the possibility to chat with a person who works for TWDC and he explained a lot about DLP to me.
QuoteFrom the Very beginning, Disneyland Paris always had and always will be having financial problems.
Yes DLP had finacial problems from the beginning, but the reason for that was, that TWDC insisted on too many hotel rooms. DLP met the attendance numbers in the first years, but DLP could never fill all the hotel rooms. Another problem was that the budget was increased so many times. But DLP will not always face financial problems. The cash flow was always good in recent years, but the interest rates on the debts killed off every profit. Without the interest rates, DLP would make profit.
That's why TWDC bought the debts to give DLP more time to clear the debts with a lower interest rate. That will help to improve spending.
Quote]Did DLP made a mistake by building a second theme park, the Disney Studios? My answer is YES
Yes it was a mistake, but they were forced to do so by contract, otherwise they would have lost the land rights.
QuoteWill 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.
First DLP doesn't need such an expansion at this time, that's why they are focusing on WDSP, which shall get a new attraction each year after Ratatouille opened. That's the expansion plan until 2018/2019.
QuoteHas 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!
Wrong. TWDC did many studies and Paris turned out to be the best location. There were only two locations TWDC considered for the European Disney resort. One near Barcelona and Marne La Vallee. They chose Paris, because it is easy to reach by plane, train and car. In addition Paris is one Europe's most visited city.
Quote-> 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, et
That might be true, but tourists are coming nonetheless. So it's a bad argument. The quality of the DLP hotels is bad, compared to other hotels of that price range, but people are willing to pay the prices.
QuoteDid you know that London(UK) was a candidate country for the position, to build the European Disneyland, but Paris finally won? That's so Sad. :-(
According to that Disney person, that's not true. They looked for land, but they never considered the UK as a location for Disneyland. It was always either Spain or France.
QuoteThe 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...
Again wrong. TWDC is fine with that system, because it helped them to get money from government for the parks. It also allowed them to establish that complicated corporation structure, in which they have a lot of control of the resort. The system is relly not the problem, otherwise so mayn other companies would have problems in France. As I mentioned above, the interest rates from international banks caused the problems.
Quote from: "DisneyEuros"Did you know that London(UK) was a candidate country for the position, to build the European Disneyland, but Paris finally won? That's so Sad. :-(
Mate, London is even more expensive than Paris (a single ride metro ticket in london is £4.30, that's more than 5 euros, while in Paris is €1.70!!!), and London has an awful weather, even in summer.
Q
Quote from: "dagobert"Usually I don't post here that often anymore, but after reading the post above, I had to write my two cents. Recently I had the possibility to chat with a person who works for TWDC and he explained a lot about DLP to me.
I enjoyed reading your comment on my post!
Nice explanation, very informative and Very interesting! :-)
Quote from: "dagobert"QuoteHas 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!
Wrong. TWDC did many studies and Paris turned out to be the best location. There were only two locations TWDC considered for the European Disney resort. One near Barcelona and Marne La Vallee. They chose Paris, because it is easy to reach by plane, train and car. In addition Paris is one Europe's most visited city.
Come ooooooon! Everybody knows that those studies were an absolute FAIL! The fact that they did many studies, doesn't mean that they made the right decision. It was absolutely wrong to build Disneyland in Paris. No one says "Oh! Let's go to Disneyland because Paris is the most visited city in Europe" or "Hey! let's go to Disneyland because it's about 3 hours drive from 50 million european homes". People go to Disneyland because it's Disneyland, and if it was in Spain it would have been a tremendous success, because the weather is better, the beach is near to the place where it was going to be built and people are much more friendly. These are REAL and TANGIBLE reasons that real people think of when they travel. People would have said "Oh, let's go a few days to Disneyland, because we can also go to the beach" or "Hey! let's go to Disneyland this winter because it's cheaper and the weather is fine!" or "Let's go to the Costa Blanca in Spain, because we can visit Disneyland one or two Days".
In the case of Paris What I always hear is "Let's go to Disneyland", and yes, they go, but it never seems that the location is a plus on a trip to Disneyland, although it can be for some people.
Other times what I hear is: "Oh! I can't go to Disneyland because my boss won't give me holidays in summer and I won't go in winter because is too cold in Paris", or "I went to Paris but I didn't go to Disneyland, because I didn't have the time" or " I went to Paris, but I didn't go to Disneyland because I Prefer to visit only Disneyland
IF I go".
So, please, be a little more objective and don't say that the decision was right because they made many studies.
You can't call Disneyland Paris a fail though, 16,0000 people went last year which is a record number, it's the number 1 tourist destination in Europe, that can't be a fail.
I take your point about the weather being better in Spain, but if I was considering flying to Barcelona for my Disney holiday, I might just as well fly to WDW and Orlando, which is the theme park capital of the world and the weathers better in Florida.
Building a Disney resort in the heart of Europe near Paris, which is the most visited capital city in the world apparently, does make sense to me
I agree with you about the weather, and I think DLP needs to build more rides under a roof. Just my two cents.
I haven't posted on here in what feels like forever, but I think I can stick my head in and leave a few of my thoughts on this matter.
Quote from: "Aladar"Come ooooooon! Everybody knows that those studies were an absolute FAIL! The fact that they did many studies, doesn't mean that they made the right decision. It was absolutely wrong to build Disneyland in Paris. No one says "Oh! Let's go to Disneyland because Paris is the most visited city in Europe" or "Hey! let's go to Disneyland because it's about 3 hours drive from 50 million european homes". People go to Disneyland because it's Disneyland, and if it was in Spain it would have been a tremendous success, because the weather is better, the beach is near to the place where it was going to be built and people are much more friendly. These are REAL and TANGIBLE reasons that real people think of when they travel. People would have said "Oh, let's go a few days to Disneyland, because we can also go to the beach" or "Hey! let's go to Disneyland this winter because it's cheaper and the weather is fine!" or "Let's go to the Costa Blanca in Spain, because we can visit Disneyland one or two Days".
There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the location for Disneyland Paris was a fail, if anything I - like others - believe it's very much so a success. As mentioned, Paris is pretty much the heart of Europe, and is reasonably accessible from almost anywhere on the continent. The same can't be said for Spain. On average it takes around 1 hour 20/30 minutes by plane to get to CDG airport from Belfast, a flight to Spain can take as long as 3 hours+ from here, a stretch many people here won't or can't do. You mentioned too that the weather is better in Spain and the people are friendlier. Yes Spain does have a better climate but I don't feel that's such a big issue honestly; particularly when you take into account the amount of covered/indoor attractions DLP has - not forgetting the 'covered walkway' which can take you from the entrance on Main Street to Adventureland (almost) bone dry. The friendliness of the locals however I'm not even going to discuss as I'm not willing to unintentionally offend anyone here. All I will say though is that all castmembers I have met in my past 14 visits over the last 15 years I've encountered on have been very friendly.
The main reason I decided to reply to your post however is that I have further evidence that proves the studies weren't "an absolute fail"; Minecon. For those who don't know, Minecon is a gaming convention dedicated to the video game Minecraft. This year Mojang (the game creators and hosts of the convention) decided to stage the event in none other than Disneyland Paris last weekend - which I was also lucky enough to attend. When the announcement was made back in August, many Minecraft fans didn't understand the decision. Many people wanted it in Spain, the UK or Mojang's home country Sweden due to the better climate or bigger fanbase. Mojang however stuck by their decision for the same reasons why Paris was chosen for the resort all those years ago and I'm very happy to report that Minecon 2012 was a huge success for Mojang and DLP as well with an estimated 7,000 Minecon attendees (believe me, last week was a wash with Minecraft fans all around the resort).
So in reply to your statement no, I don't believe the studies were an absolute fail and I very much so believe the opposite. The fact that Mojang decided to choose the resort for this year's convention (which was held in Las Vegas last year) speaks for itself in my opinion.
I never said Disneyland is fail. I said the studies were a fail. Of course Disneyland is the nº1 Tourist Destination in Europe, but it would have a lot more visitors if it was in Spain.
Anyway it's not the same flying to Spain than Flying to Florida. You can't compare a 2 hours flight with a 10 hours fligth, and, well, I don't know your income, but a holiday in WDW is much much more expensive. First, it's a longer trip. Second, you need more days to stay and see it (almost) complete. And Third, The spanish Disneyland was not going to be built exactly in Barcelona, but 3 hours drive from it, heading south, where the weather is much better.
I want to point out that, personally, for me, Paris is a perfect location. I love Paris and I love cold weather.
Quote from: "Aladar"I never said Disneyland is fail. I said the studies were a fail. Of course Disneyland is the nº1 Tourist Destination in Europe, but it would have a lot more visitors if it was in Spain.
.
And the basis on which you base that is.....? I think on your personal preference and opinion.....
I must agree that Paris is a way better choice of location than anywhere in Spain. Saying that Paris is no incentive to go to Disneyland is mad. It's one of the most wonderful cities in the world.
Over the last couple of years I have gone to Disneyland many times. On these trips I have gone with my parents (68 & 69) and my parents-in-law. There is no way I could have persuaded them to come if the trip didn't include going to Paris. As it turns out they loved Disney and are going back. But it shows that Paris attracts people.
Some people think that holidays are all about weather: thats not the case for everyone. Paris offers something that other Disneylands just don't have. A beautiful, old, majestic city the likes of which there must be two or three of in the world just down the road.