HI Bill,
well we are going into the jungle of contracts and internal info which everybody outside the companies (and I'm outside too) has a hard time to grasp, but in fact there was something like a kind of obligation to construct the studios...
The contracts the Walt Disney Company signed in the late 1980s with the French Government for the EuroDisney Resort (now: Disneyland Resort Paris) gave them a huge amount of land for nearly no money at all. But: this land is not yet really owned by the company the Walt Disney Company created to operate and own the resort, EuroDisney SCA. Instead only the land already used is owned fully by the company. Regarding the remaining land (and that is the bigger part of the land sigend over in the contracts) the contract has certain obligations forcing EuroDisney SCA either to open a second theme park or an expansion of the first theme park with the same scope as a second theme park would have to a certain date (which was (sorry, don't have my papers here right now) either 2002 or 2003 if I'm not mistaken). There is another deadline looming for a third expansion or park in the future. If a deadline is not met major parts of the land fall back to the state and are lost. Something neither the Walt Disney Company nor EuroDisney SCA want as it would hamper their future expansion possibilities and as the land is already included in the accounting books - and certainly something the banks don't want either as the land is part of the holdings of the company EuroDisney SCA which owes them quiet some money....
Still couldn't they have constructed another Tokyo Disney Sea in Paris as a second gate? Well, the banks believed the presentations that with a smaller, simpler second park not only the deadline of the original contract would be met but also the profit would see a major increase allowing EuroDisney SCA to pay off their debt easier - don't forget that these presentations were made when the Walt Disney Company still had Paul Pressler and his visions, DCA was not yet opened and the managers of the banks could point EuroDisney SCA toward the USA saying "see, even the rich Walt Disney Company goes for a small park and says it will bring in money, and they should know their business, they are longer in it than you!".
Was there a way around the financial restraints the banks placed on the expansion? Yes, there could have been some:
1. offering more new shares as they did already anyway? NO, as this would have reduced the value of the existing shares and the banks wouldn't have agreed on that.
2. more new credits on top of those granted for the WDS already? NO, the banks would have had to approve that and they wouldn't have, as they had to offer new credits already anyway.
3. more sponsors? Well, there are already quiet a few sponsors in the new park, so it is questionable wether you could have found more sponsors willing to pay enough to really add something substantial to the park without adding to the bill for EuroDisney SCA at the same time too.
4. more money from the Walt Disney Company? NO. First off all we were in the Paul Pressler time back then. He was sure small and cheap parks would bring in the money just as well as large, splendid once. So he certainly wouldn't have seen the need for more money to be spent on the opening phase of the WDS. Second: if the Walt Disney Company would have wanted to give EuroDisney SCA a hand (highly unlikely as I already said) the banks would have wanted to say something about this too. Every credit would have placed another obligation on EuroDisney SCA and therefor would have to be greenlighted by the banks who already lended money to the company (due to the restructuring contracts). As additional obligations in the not so wonderful financial situation could cause the banks to receive less money on their credit most propably they wouldn't have agreed if the Walt Disney Company wouldn't have done something like "no need to pay money back till in 10 years time" which again is highly unlikely to happen.
5. A solution similar to the one for SpaceMountain in Disneyland Paris (as EuroDisney SCA couldn't afford that one but needed it, it was financed and constructed by the Walt Disney Company and is still owned by it, which has leased it out to EuroDisney SCA which can buy it at the end of the leasing time)? Most propably no. First of all: Paul Pressler wouldn't have seen the need for additional huge attractions he would have had to finance (see above), and second these kind of agreements include an annual payment for the lease so it would have had to be greenlighted again by the banks' comitee which most propably wouldn't have greenlighted it as they didn't see the need for more attractions either.
So basically all we can do now is: hope that with the latest changes in the Walt Disney Company and the results / guest numbers coming in the banks will see where the failures lies and will greenlighted what ever way EuroDisney SCA and the Walt Disney Company choose to expand and improve the Studios.
Yours sincerely
Dirk