The parks would absolutely be sold, I suspect. Not every company is happy to dabble in things far from their core business. I think AB does it because it's good PR and makes the company that sells alcohol look they're heavily into conservation. I'm not saying they aren't, but it's certainly good for their image. Another company may not think so.
I could see them being spun off into their own company, they have their own brand (well Sea World does) and they are well run, profitable parks and SF and CF are too much in debt to buy right now. No one else in the industry wants to/could afford to buy them.
I honestly hope that you arent right Jeff, but I hope if this does go down, like it sounds like it will, is there a chance that they will let the people who are running the parks now, continue to run the parks, without being affiliated with this company?
Bolliger/Mabillard for President in '08 NOT Dinn/Summers
Well SWO would defiantly fit in with WDW (its so close, and they don't have a marine park yet.) But I don't see how/why Disney would want the any to the other properties, Williamsburg you could sort of turn into a resort (via Kingsmill) but Tampa and San Antonio are not resort material, and I assume (never been there) neither is San Diego.
Brian Noble said:No, but it may well be a quaint, outdated thing.Increasingly, businesses have nothing to do with countries.
Seems to me it wasn't THAT long ago that governments held the power over companies operating within their borders. Now, that situation has done a COMPLETE reversal, and companies more and more dictate the terms and conditions...governments are left with an unwinnable dilemma - acquiesce or risk the devastation of job losses.
You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)