Can someone explain Six Flags money?

How much money do they make a year?
How much money do they spend on putting up new rides?
How much money do they spend on marketing?
How much money do they spend on workers (Managers, and other employees)?
How much money do they spend on paying the debt every year?
How much money do they spend on maintenance, and keeping the parks up?
How much money does Shapiro get?

You can ballpark these figures, but I'm really trying to find out why they aren't making money every year, and what are the figures for everything.

I sure can't answer your questions but I'd like to chime in anyhow :)

I'm sure there are lots of people in the company who make MUCH more than they should. Well, from a 'working for your dollar' point of view.

I'm also sure there are lots of people that don't make enough money for what they do.

The dark side of american capitalistic corporations.

I'm sure there is still a fair amount of corruption in the company.

Holidayworld makes money, and still manages to keep up their rides, run to capacity, free parking, free pop, etc. Hmm... I hope someday Six Flags can start being more of a family friendly place.. I'm sure they can. I'm optimistic.

You might to try the financial and annual reports. ;)

spinout Quote:

You can ballpark these figures, but I'm really trying to find out why they aren't making money every year, and what are the figures for everything.

--------------------------------------------------

Of course they make money but they reinvest it back into the parks. They pay there property taxes, put in new rides and pay very high insurance premiums. You can't compare a SF park to HW which is located in a cornfield in bum f*ck Ind. and is not on prime realty. How many new rides does HW actually put in yearly? SFgradv put in KK for 25millinon than added Eltoro for 18 million in the last 3 years which is probably more than HW has spent on their park in the last 10-20 years, and thats just one park.

Yep, six flags has spent alotta money on 'bum' rides.

Deja vu. Kingda ka. El toro was a huge headache when it opened.

These rides are mostly gimmicks. They don't have staying power and are expensive to operate, and are low capacity.

The bottom line is that if you continually spend more money than you make, it will eventually bite you in the a$$. Granted, you need to spend money to make money but you have to be intelligent about it.

In the simplest of terms, using 2006 EOY numbers, SF generated about $50M in operating profit on just under $950M in revenue, but it paid out over $200M in interest alone - ultimately posting a loss just over $350M.

CF in comparison generated just under $220M in operating profit on $830M in revenue. See the huge operational cost difference here? When you add in the other expenses (like $88M in interest) they end up with a profit of $88M.

This all comes from Income Statements. You can find them in the annual reports, or at www.finance.yahoo.com

*** Edited 8/3/2007 12:33:45 AM UTC by CoasterDad64***

to put it in even simpler terms, Six Flags is screwed because of the boatload of interest they have to pay each year. They got that burden from the exorbitant debt load because they overpaid for all of those acquisitions. Their hope was that margins and income would increase (synergies, yada yada) at a rate higher than the interest rate, and with enough left over to significantly pay down the debt.

Similarly, Dick Kinzel and Cedar Fair are finding themselves in that same situation. The CF numbers discussed above are results from PRIOR to the Paramount acquisition. They do not reflect the new debt load, NOR the fact that their pre-existing debt had to be refinanced at HIGHER rates, as part of the agreement to get the debt to fund the Paramount acquisition. CF is already using EBITDA as a metric (one which ignores the huge Interest number) of financial results, instead of Net Income. This deflects the shareholder from realizing just how much of the "operating profit" is then paid back to bond holders as interest, instead of being left over for Unit Holder distributions (i.e. dividends). Now, if Dick can get the cost savings out of the Paramount Parks to cover the higher interest, and pay down the debt, then it's a risk worth taking. However, that same argument was used for the GL acquisition, and well, I guess that isn't the best example now, is it.

Do not assume that Prior History is an indicator of future results for CF. Do your own Due Diligence. *** Edited 8/3/2007 1:58:12 AM UTC by CreditWh0re***

Actually, the numbers I provided do include 6 months of the PPI acquisition. If you look at the SEC filings for Q2 2007 you will see that FUN paid about $124M in interest for the 12 months between 6/06 and 6/07.

As for dividends to unit holders, they have not been reduced. The assertion that CF is paying down bond debt instead of paying unit holders is incorrect.

But this is a discussion about Six Flags, and I made the fateful mistake of comparing CF and SF. Of course, there are no other comparisons to be made as all the other players are conglomerates who run amusement parks as a portion of a much larger portfolio.

---

CoasterDad64 said:
Actually, the numbers I provided do include 6 months of the PPI acquisition. If you look at the SEC filings for Q2 2007 you will see that FUN paid about $124M in interest for the 12 months between 6/06 and 6/07.

---

I stand corrected. I was focused on the Q2 filings not including the bulk of the operating season of the Paramount parks, and confused myself.

---

CoasterDad64 said:

As for dividends to unit holders, they have not been reduced. The assertion that CF is paying down bond debt instead of paying unit holders is incorrect.

---

I made no such assertion. I said that EBITDA was being used to deflect the fact that the majority of the operating profit was then being spent on Interest (true cash outlay), and thus was NOT available for Distributions. Now, if the profit before Interest (Post PPI) is greater than pre PPI, it could be argued that the deal was beneficial to unit holders. However, look at that Q2 filing, and see how much was left over BEFORE the approximate amount that will be paid to Unit Holders as Distribution, and you will see that there is very little wiggle room. Dick has made a legacy of the fact that the distribution has steadily risen over the years. I think that trend is seriously at risk, and I actually think the distribution in its entirety is at risk also. The fact that you even mentioned the distribution (dividend) hadn't been cut, is to me a sign that you've pondered it happening.

---

CoasterDad64 said:
But this is a discussion about Six Flags, and I made the fateful mistake of comparing CF and SF. Of course, there are no other comparisons to be made as all the other players are conglomerates who run amusement parks as a portion of a much larger portfolio.

---

You made no mistake. I was trying to point out, for the benefit of the Original Poster, that SIX's problem was the debt, not the income from operations; and that this same problem is about to manifest itself at CF. *** Edited 8/3/2007 4:39:14 AM UTC by CreditWh0re*** *** Edited 8/3/2007 4:40:44 AM UTC by CreditWh0re***

Here's how I think it works.

1. Add a coat of paint.

2. ???

3. PROFIT!

/endsarcasm ^_~

---

However, look at that Q2 filing, and see how much was left over BEFORE the approximate amount that will be paid to Unit Holders as Distribution, and you will see that there is very little wiggle room.

---

When you look at Q2 trends over the past few years the same is true regardless of PPI. The real test will be Q3, as this is where the vast majority of operating income occurs, while interest is (relatively) static.

^^Have you seen the test paint on S:TE. It Might draw people to the park.