Hasbro, if the quarterlies are to be believed, doesn't make much, if anything, on Star Wars and Marvel, so I have to think Chris Cocks' hack and slash would have gotten rid of them by now if not for some deeper attachment to the licences. Could be that Hasbro feels they're so associated with their brand that even if it's financially the right move to let them go, it would be a very bad look business and industry-wise. Could be they don't want to let them go because the inherent potential in those brands if they ever get hot again. Likely it's both.I had mostly the same thoughts in that Hasbro and Disney were probably the best match under the current circumstances, but... In a more positive light that didn't involve notions of "embarrassment" and "inability to move on".
But then I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the retail ups and downs of these over the last few years other than what little I come across here. Although I wouldn't say things are particularly rosy right now either.
And Disney... Disney just can't ask anyone but Hasbro to pay what they want for those licences, even if that asking price is what's keeping Hasbro from turning a profit on the properties.
I suppose we'll find out soon enough. Hasbro is a publicly traded company and is required by law to publish quarterly financial reports available to the public. We'll find out soon enough if Disney cut them a deal.For all we know, Disney acquiesced to both segments’ (ESPECIALLY Star Wars) lesser performance the past couple of years and Hasbro got some of the license costs reduced.