Posted
Kentucky officials are suing bankrupt theme park operator Six Flags Inc. over ownership of rides and equipment at a shuttered amusement park in Louisville. State officials contend that the rides are considered fixtures to the land on which Kentucky Kingdom sits, much of which is owned by the Kentucky State Fair Board.
Read more from AP via Businessweek.
Jeffrey Seifert said:
I did say articles, as in plural. I've read pretty much everything I could find, however, I haven't found anything that mentions $2 million still owed either as unpaid debt or a termination clause.If anyone has seen such an article would you be kind enough to provide a little more information than "somewhere"--like maybe a link?
Here it is. Page 2 of said article: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100205/BUSINESS/2050349/Si...made+money
Wouldn't rides being placed on leased property be like furniture being placed on a rented property?
Regardless, this is going to be interesting how this turns out. I am on board with SF on this.
They (SF) is leasing the property and doing maintenance along with painting stuff which makes sense to do, but bringing in furniture (like rides) would mean they can take them away when they are done with their lease.
We shall see what the lease agreement entails along with the bankruptcy rules.
My favorite MJ tune: "Billie Jean" which I have been listening to alot now. RIP MJ.
You don't have to get permits and have engineers help you bring furniture into an office. Plus, an office lease is written differently than a land lease. I was reading a lease yesterday that specifically cited anything having a concrete foundation as being a permanent structure and thus being surrendered to the landowner at termination.
If the Six Flags/Fair Board lease was written similarly to the one I read, then the Fair Board has a shot.
I hate that saying. What's the point in having cake if you can't eat it.
884 Coasters, 34 States, 7 Countries
http://www.rollercoasterfreak.com My YouTube
Chitown said:
The same way you go into a bar and not drink an alcoholic beverage.
For that analogy to be accurate, you'd have to buy the drink and not drink it.
884 Coasters, 34 States, 7 Countries
http://www.rollercoasterfreak.com My YouTube
The lease could include a cause that says SFI was to pAy the taxes, that isn't uncommon at all. As far as the drop tower accident, just because the fair board can lay claim to the rides still doesn't make them liable as the rides, operatation of rides, and care of the rides was leased out to another company.
As for rides, I keep reading the terms permenant or semi perm in these articles so it seems that any ride with a perm foundation could belong yo the fair board. It's been written in articles for years about SFI having to ask permission to remove rides. I'm thinking they may end up winning this one.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
Jason Hammond said:
I hate that saying. What's the point in having cake if you can't eat it.
It means you can't both have your cake and eat it.
Once you eat it it is gone and you no longer have it.
It is literally impossible to both eat a cake and have it too.
I would still have it. It'd have it in my mouth and eventually my stomach.
884 Coasters, 34 States, 7 Countries
http://www.rollercoasterfreak.com My YouTube
You must be logged in to post
