. I don't think they need to worry about practicality limits. They have an amusement park in the middle of nowhere and it attracts plenty of visitors. They already attract more people from their region than they should be capable of based on their size in comparison to other parks. Now they are working on outside areas. They have to build bigger and better attractions to pull from other parks. From a financial standpoint, it looks impossible, but Paula already said they are working on a huge project. I would not see something like this being impossible. Maybe they are working on buying SFKK's water attractions.
Its not the slides idea that I wanted forwarded. Its the combo, they mentioned the two daughters, and the names would fit the theme of the water park.
Gee, I thought the reason I don't have an amusement park is because I don't want to have an amusement.park.
Six Flags did not go under because they went beyond what is practical. They spent lots of money on growth, which is a general business practice if you want to make more money you have to spend more money. They went under because of poor management of assets retained. They did not use strong preventative maintenance, they have poor human resources, they spent way too much on advertising, they overpriced and undervalued everything. They never caught on to the idea that with food services they should have been making money on the quantity end. They should have better executed contracts with ride manufacturers, they had power and the ability to create exclusive rights and they never did. If the parks had just been a little cleaner it does not cost millions to clean, maybe if their management was out in the park fixing the obvious instead of crunching numbers and fiddling fingers, they might have been successful.
Lola and Stella? Maybe if TGG does some work on it first.
Still hoping for "Kombora" and "Matokeo!"
You must be logged in to post