Cedar Fair announces Geauga Lake will be water park only

---

People keep coming back to this nonsense about how GL was competition. Well if you own the competition, then what kind of logic are you using that you don't want to make money from both ends? That's the most irrational thing you could possibly say. "I only want to make money with the left hand, not the right hand!" Think about it. Do you honestly think they'd care if they made money from one place at the expense of the other? The goal was always to make more money, by having them both.

---

The theory is something I agree with. The "facts" aren't.

I do agree with the goal orginally being "to make more money, by having them both." At some point that changed: Phase II was cut. Eventually someone figured out that if they can make more money by only having the costs of one park instead of two then that's the way to go.

Let's assume Park A has $10m in revenue and $7m in expenses. Park B has $5m in revenue and $4m in expenses. Total Profit: $4m

Now, lets assume closing Park B will increase revenue at Park A as Park B's visitors have nowhere else to go. Revenue becomes $12m and costs increase to $7.5m. Total Profit: $4.5m, plus whatever you make by selling off Park B. And if you can get more than 2/5 of Park B's visitors to go to Park A, so much the more profit.

---

Sadly, GL never got beyond being a drag on the bottom line.

---

This to me is the interesting point. Does anyone know for a fact if GL was cash flow positive or cash flow negative? We know that GL had, in a bad year, more revenue than MiA.

(The last reveue figures from CF that I saw were for the year before the buyout:
Cedar Point $210 mil
Knott's Berry Farm $186 mil
King's Island $108 mil
Canada's Wonderland $93 mil
King's Dominion $81 mil
Great America (CA) $63 mil
Carowinds $60 mil
Dorney Park $56 mil
Valley Fair $36 mil
Worlds of Fun $35 mil
Geauga Lake $26 mil
Michigan's Adventure $19 mil)

AND CF cut expenses at GL by running parts of it from Sandusky. For all we know GL has always been cash flow positive after the first year. We just assume it hasn't.

---

And besides, some of you talk about how Six Flags made all the wrong decisions and failed, and in the same breath say Cedar Fair wanted the park to squash it. Well if it wasn't competitive in the first place, why would they do that?

---

OK, now I'm confused. First "GL never got beyond being a drag on the bottom line' and now GL was "competitive?" GL was cash flow positive for decades with less than 700,000 attendance--otherwise it wouldn't have lasted 100 years. Maybe CF found the formula to make it cash flow positive (remove 2 coasters, invest no $ to even get rid of the old water park) maybe they didn't.

But just b/c CF is "merging" GL's ride side with CP doesn't mean that GL wasn't cash flow positive.

---

Let's see. I said how much did Cedar Fair invest in the ride side? I didn't say how many coasters did they build. Why does an investment have to mean new coasters? An investment could have been landscaping the "closed" sections of the park, a new restaurant, painting all the buildings, special events, a big marketing campaign, or a used flat ride to take up some space and add life to an empty midway.

I agree with everyone (and even said so) about them needing to take out the expensive coasters. But, you're saying Cedar Fair did everything they could possibly think of to bring people into the ride side. In reality, they didn't.

---

Damn straight. I wish I'd said something live that :)

---

Rick Munarriz said:
"It failed to invest in marquee attractions over the past four seasons, no doubt fearing they would cannibalize Cedar Point's turnstile clicks."

---

Seemed to work when Six Flags did it, eh?

---

Rob Ascough said:
"How was Geauga Lake not competition for Cedar Fair? A lot of people live between the cities of Cleveland and Sandusky. A lot of those people may go to one amusement park. By eliminating Geauga Lake (the park that happens to be closest to the vast majority of people in that part of the state), those people have no choice but to go to Cedar Point.

---

Geauga Lake was never a competitor for Cedar Point. If, like Munarriz's suggests, that Geagua Lake "cannibalized" people from Cedar Point, then Cedar Point should see a significant attendance boost next year.

The two parks have always been looked at differently by people who live in this part of the state. I was talking with a co-worker today who I think had an experience similar to many people who grew up around here. He is a lifelong Cleveland resident who told me that he had been to Geagua Lake exactly once in his life. "But we went to Sea World several times." He told me growing up that it was never Cedar Point versus Geagua Lake. He said when they went to an amusement park, it was just always assumed they would go to Cedar Point.

^^Gemini, you're acting like adding new attractions is black and white: either you add a bunch of huge coasters or you add nothing at all. There is a gray space in there that could involve small rides, flat rides, shows, animals, etc. Big roller coasters aren't the only types of attractions and Munarriz is right, Cedar Fair did very little to invest in the rides park during its ownership.

My 2cents - There is a small little park Bay Beach in Green Bay, WI that has talked about adding a roller coaster in the past. Maybe this would a perfect opportunity to score a major cast-off for the park. Heck even RWB would be better than nothing. I would love to have this little park score a major coaster.

Heck Villain would be a great addition to the CCI lineup at Mt. Olympus in the Dells if they decide to sell the ride.

But that's just wishful thinking that CF will sell off some of these rides to other parks rather than keep them in the family.

Here's to Bay Beach Amusement park scoring a Roller Coaster!

Someday....

Paul, if you buy a ship with a hole in it, you have to patch the hole before you add a new deck. Are you suggesting a Giant Frisbee would have saved the park? They had huge guest service problems to address after Six Flags left. A new flat ride isn't going to help a troubled park get back to the basics. I know enthusiasts wanted new rides, but enthusiasts always want new rides.

Besides, Munarriz complained about the lack of "marquee attractions." Small rides and shows are not marquee attractions.

---

How was Geauga Lake not competition for Cedar Fair?

---

It never was. Ever. When Six Flags was building more coasters, they got a modest one-year boost in attendance, while Cedar Point went sky high in the same year (2000). GL and SeaWorld together may have been a competitor, but even then it was for less than half of Cedar Point's market, because Detroit was more than half.

---

I don't see any notable improvements on the ride side since they took over.

---

How many times does it have to be said? Six Flags tried that, and it got them nowhere.

Seriously guys, all of the "solutions" you come up with were tried by Six Flags, and failed.

And how many times does it have to be asked? What improvements did Cedar Fair make to the rides side? If you can't answer that, the "CF did what they could" argument is as invalid as the "CF did nothing" argument.

I'd also like to see some kind of proof that the park was a drain on the bottom line. This "everyone's an expert" stuff is getting as old as my various preservation rants. The way some of you talk, it's like you've been sleeping next to the corporate leaders and hearing them whisper little secrets all night long.

*** This post was edited by Rob Ascough 9/24/2007 1:12:19 PM ***

Jeff - You accuse so many people of being argumentative just to be argumentative and you do the same thing. You misquoted me once already and I clarified a second time and you misquoted me on purpose again. You consider Six Flags building a **** ton of rides an improvement. Well, I cleary said there are other ways to "improve" and/or "invest" in a park besides marquee coasters. We're also talking about CEDAR FAIR improving the ride side, NOT Six Flags. We all clearly realize what they added to the park.

As such, what kind of NOTABLE improvements and/or investments has Cedar Fair made on the ride side since they purchased it that would contribute to a positive guest experience and encourage visitors to show up and/or return?

Oooh ooooh, I know....Cornhole toss! ;)

It's Six Flags' fault! It's Cedar Fair's fault! It's Anheuser-Busch's fault!

You know, I could make an argument for all three.

But here is something that cannot be denied:

While the three powers above were playing, "anything you can do, I can do better", the economics of northern Ohio (jobs, housing, unemployment, etc) were going in the crapper. Nothing any of the folks mentioned above was going to have a bearing on that.

I think many of you are glossing over that very important aspect in all of this.

So what other ways could they have invested, Timmy? Tell us, because those clueless blokes in Sandusky clearly need to know.

Yes, Cedar Fair didn't invest rides in the ride side. Why would they when it didn't work for Six Flags? It's like putting your hand on a hot stove and burning yourself, then doing it again with the hopes that it won't burn this time.

---

I'd also like to see some kind of proof that the park was a drain on the bottom line.

---

You mean besides the fact that they're shutting half of it down?

Wahoo is right, that both owners had their mis-steps, and I wonder beyond that if the external factors weren't an even bigger factor, especially the departure of Shamu.

So which is it Jeff? Did Cedar Fair make improvements to the rides side, or did they not invest in it? Or do you just not have a clue and are being a little argumentative yourself?

Shutting down the rides side of the park says nothing. Maybe it means there was no money to be made, but maybe it means Cedar Fair simply doesn't care enough about it to make it work. If your car stops running, you might assume it ran out of gas but the problem could in fact be any number of things.

Put your hand on a hot stove and if you get burned, you try putting on gloves instead of throwing away the stove.

---

Put your hand on a hot stove and if you get burned, you try putting on gloves instead of throwing away the stove.

---

Unless getting the gloves and using them is more of a hassle than the reward of using the stove in the first place.

I admire the character trait of "get to the goal at all costs" that you seem to possess, Rob. That's the kind of thing I'd want in my corner. :)

But sometimes getting to that goal just isn't worth it. Cedar Fair seems to think this is one of those times and regardless of any of our feelings on the subject - it's their decision to make.

---

This "everyone's an expert" stuff is getting as old as my various preservation rants.

---

I've made the "expert" complaint myself, but this is the first time I've seen it applied in reverse. :)

Perhaps hindsight produces an appearance of experts, but I'd say there's a difference between that and simply making an observation given known facts. There are plenty of people who not only believe Cedar Fair did it wrong, but know exactly what the right way was. So, which expert talk is getting old?

Rutgers football coach Greg Schiano said, "There are two things every man in America thinks he can do: work a grill and coach football." There's an enthusiast analogy in there somewhere. :)

Jeff, you can call me Tim, thanks.

In my original post, I clearly said there are other ways to invest/improve a park. They tore out the big rides the park couldn't afford. I have no problem with that. Decrease the amount of money you need to operate the park and I assume gain some money by selling off the ride. I'm not sure if King's Island literally paid Geauga Lake for X-Flight or not, I'm just guessing. To me, that's not an investment on GL's behalf. If it were my business, King's Island and Dorney Park would be charged any fees associated with removal of the rides from Geauga Lake. The investment would come in when you landscape or rebuild the midway that was lost by the removal of the rides. Did they do that? No. They just left big blights where the rides once stood. They did the same with the closed water park. When you have guests coming to your park and it LOOKS like they are in the midst of closing, I don't blame them for not coming back. Compared to a multi-million dollar investment for a new coaster, it doesn't take much money to demolish an old water park and make the area presentable to the public.

Other ways you can invest in a park? Painting and or re-theming your midways. Cedar Point did this to the games midway when maXair went in. Look at the transformation. Again, not a huge investment there in the grand scheme of things. You're not looking at $21 million in midway improvements.

Hmmm. Let's see. What else? As much as I personally hate the idea, why not being in outside vendors to do some food venues? If you can't afford to operate the food department yourself, bring in someone who can. They wouldn't even have to bring in Chick-Fil-A. They could have fair vendors or whatever.

How about some special events? Bring in some big groups like others have said. Try to win back all the union crowd they lost when they built WWK with non-union labor. Have a family day or weekend. Any kind of "special promotion" would bring some people in. I know I'm not local anymore, but I didn't hear of any special events on any of the boards except for the usual coaster events.

There are lots of used flat rides out there for sale. These require little investment up front. But, even if you give the impression you have a "new" attraction at the park, some people will come. At bare minimum, it would at least show you're not in the midst of closing down. "Oh look, Geauga Lake got a new so and so. Let's give it another chance." It would also give the park something to market to the locals.

Again, I haven't seen anything worthwhile that Cedar Fair did during their ownership of Geauga Lake that gave the public any reason to come back, much less show up in the first place. Yes, we all know they invested in WWK. But what about the ride side?

Of course WWK is going to be more popular than the ride side. You just invested $25 million into it and it's fun. People probably ventured over to the ride side, saw a dilapidated park with lots of stuff missing and went back to the cool new water slides. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the water side was/is more popular.
*** This post was edited by halltd 9/24/2007 2:20:12 PM ***

Agreed Gonch. I just think that four years- half of which were spent really trying and the other half not so much- wasn't enough time. But maybe it's just because I'm one of those people that does what he sets out to do (call it a character trait, I suppose). I think Cedar Fair owes it to themselves, the investors, the Geauga Lake employees and all past, present and future customers to give it another few years before they conclude it's not going to work.

*** This post was edited by Rob Ascough 9/24/2007 2:10:49 PM ***

---

Painting and or re-theming your midways.

---

Check. They painted the Top Spin and its scenery, and ridership actually went up. The area around it got lots of paint, the new cornhole game. The 60's style diner was redecorated. Those were just a couple of things that Spehn pointed out to me in the spring. They previously painted Double Loop and Thunderhawk. Rides that barely ever ran under Six Flags rule were repaired and open most days. They repainted the netting play area. They replaced the simulator and 4D movies. The flume saw a great deal of repair work. Wolf Bobs was almost entirely retracked. Villain had some work (unfortunately in the second half only). The Ferris wheel lighting was mostly replaced.

To suggest they weren't investing in the rides is a disservice to the people who used to work there.

And by the way, the union worker "situation" was a non-issue. They came back anyway.

I would say I could do both, but I charred hot dogs last week, and my fantasy team is 1-2 (after a blowout loss of 173-68 this weekend).

Tim what investment should CF made? Six Flags dumped in 6 marquee attractions in one year. It worked for a year and then the park started to go down the drain. Motley Fool says they should have invested in a marquee attraction, but they had 6, none of which did the trick. Even at Cedar Point, the fascination of a new ride only works for so long, and even now CP doesn't get the return that it did just 7 years ago.

Sadly, I think in 2000 GL was already on its deathbed, and not Kinzel, Snyder or Walt Disney could have saved the park. Heck, they could have pulled a Wonder Twins and not gotten it right.

Years ago, in the eighties, there was this great Mexican fast food chain called Zantigo. Some of you may remember it. Now I always hated Taco Bell, but I loved the cheese chilitos at Zantigo. Then, round about 1986, Taco Bell (Pepsico) bought the entire chain. They converted some of the units to Taco Bell, but mostly they just shut them down. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE COMPETITION!

The same thing goes on all the time. CVS buys Revco, shuts down hundreds of units that are too close to their own locations. Bank A buys Bank B -- goodbye market choice, hello pink slips.

If Cedar Point and Geauga Lake aren't in the same market, then why are both parks permitted for discussion on Pointbuzz, Jeff? (I'll resist the urge to call you Jeffy. ;) ) It's because so many of the same people are interested in the two parks, because they're only 90 miles apart -- because they're in the SAME MARKET.

I still hate Taco Bell.

^ - but to say they competed means they sought to provide the same experience.

Cedar Point goes for the thrills. Bigger and better (at least till a few years ago). They cater to the teens and thrill seekers. There is family stuff to do, but it is not their main selling point.

Geauga Lake went for the families. Between Geauga Lake and SeaWorld, there was 2 days worth of excitement for the whole family. They catered to company and group outings. Does Cedar Point do this as well? Sure, but not for the cost that Geauga Lake did.

*** This post was edited by Juggalotus 9/24/2007 2:29:23 PM ***