I was going strictly off the quote in the article that is referenced in the thread title. The analyst, who I promise knows better than either of us, said that Comcast is going to spend around $150 million in each of the next five years while the previous owners spent the minimum, which was $50m. I'm reading that as basic upkeep + $500 million in new attractions. Given the original WWoHP is generally cited as costing $265m, that gets you a WWoHP at USH and a new Potter Amityville in the next five years. Or a patch of dirt in Amityville and a Uni-sized Next Gen. $150mil a year really doesn't buy that much. The trackwork alone for Big Thunder was what, 9m?
I'm surprised that nobody pointed out the massive mischaracterization in the article regarding profitability. Uni had operating cash flow of $157m in the quarter while Disney had operating *profit* of $222m. But operating profit is EBIT, which is after subtracting depreciation (operating cash flow doesn't count dep exp), meaning the apples to apples comparison would be $222 + about $290m in depreciation expense. So over three times the cash flow of Uni. That doesn't even take into account cap ex, which I honestly think we could make the case that it would be substantially higher for Disney in Q1 given their ongoing projects versus dirt moving at USF, new projectors at Spiderman, and an exact Spiderman clone at USH.
If Disney was worried, they would be building decks in Downtown Disney instead of sodding the ground and letting it sit. I'm not rooting for either, it's great the Uni turned things around. But I'm intrigued by your vague assertion of "what is actually happening." Uni merely returned to where it should have been all along. Uni was tanking badly and it took the greatest theme park expansion in the history of mankind (TM) to get back to 2004 attendance levels. By every objective metric, Disney dwarfs Uni. Until Uni has a 10 resorts charging $35 a head for buffet/character dinners that are booked solid 180 days in advance, the fact that Uniheads tout IoA's per capita spending as some sort of turning point is just plain laughable. Park experience-wise, I'm indifferent. Performance-wise, there's not rational argument that puts the two in the same league.