Cedar Fair entertains 12.6 million guests, loses Camp Snoopy contract

coasterfreaky mentioned:

"Paramount is responsible for the distribution of all of the Peanuts movies and television specials. I bet you didn't know that there are over 70 Peanuts television specials!"

I remember when they showed those on Nickelodeon which is owned by Paramount/Viacom. I wish they show those again, bring them to Nick at Nite or TV Land. The 70 specials was enough for a TV series, that Nick did. Of course my favorite scene which they showed on almost all of those specials it seem like was when Charley Brown missed kicking the football and fell on his back, Because Lucy pulled the football back. *** This post was edited by Sawblade5 1/8/2005 9:37:12 AM ***

Jazma, that's all just super-dandy, but you have not yet backed up your claim: Knott's had (has) exclusivity rights to the Peanuts characters for an amount of time. Prove that, and your concern is validated. All that you've shown is that Knott's had rights. The exclusivity may very well be a consequence of Schulz' reluctance: is it more than coincidence that Camp Snoopy happened to be located in the man's hometown?

^ It also shows how and why Cedar Fair became involved in MOA CS---when they bought Knott's. Second, it shows that from 1997 onwards, when CF acquired KBF, they were able to add the Camp Snoopy concept to there other parks, which are at every CF park apart from three: GL-their newest park-which will welcome the Peanuts characters in 05; MiA-their smallest park, which they have done little reinvestment in since they have had water line issues with the city, which have just this past week been resolved; and Valleyfair!--I assume here because the existing management contract was in place with MOA, and the two (MOA and VF!) are only about 30 minutes from each other.

It makes total sense that CF would gain more by having a Camp Snoopy as a draw to Valleyfair!, then the management fee from the MOA. However, there was a pre existing contract for a specified number of years.

Obviously Knott's was involved: MOA has some of the exact same rides: their coaster is similar to Jaguar at Knott's, they also have the Mighty Axe, which was Hammerhead at KBF, and the same ride as Tampico Tumbler at Knott's (though I forget the MOA name for it.) Was it also a coincidence that they received the same spinning coaster that WOF did this year?

So being that no other park had a Camp Snoopy without Knott's involvement until they sold to CF, and now most CF parks have them, who do you think has the rights? Who do you think coined, trademarked the phrase and logo, for Camp Snoopy? Is it coincidence that most of the other CF parks look similar to Camp Snoopy at Knott's, even though prior most were Berenstein Bears? No. Cedar Fair simply switched under the assumption that Snoopy had more resonence with families than the Berenstein Bears. I assume the same is true if CF were to acquire another park that held rights to a more well known group of characters.

Time will tell in March. It was stated publically, though I do not have the reports in front of me, that when CF bought Knott's in 97, that they also acquired the rights to use the Peanuts gang in their parks. You can go back and do research on their web site if you really need 'hard facts.' I'm fine to wait until March to see what happens.

Flogbert, the fact that Schulz was from St.Paul, may be why the developers of MOA were interested in the concept. It also had to do with the fact they already had developed a successful mall in Edmonton that had an indoor entertainment area as well.But you also need to understand the goal of the Knott family prior to deciding to sell to Cedar Fair was to attempt to expand, both in Buena Park and nationally. I know this as I grew up in Buena Park, so as Knott's was the largest employer in the city, they were always in the newspaper.They sought partnerships at the time, and MOA was one. No, I don't know specifics, but assume the mall developers own the land and building, and perhaps Knott's made the ride selections, being that there were similarities in rides put in to Knott's at the time. Same goes now with CF two spinning coasters put in this year at MOA and WOF.At the same time the Knott family attempted to roll out a chain of restaurants under the name Mrs. Knotts. Those disappeared. The family sold the jams and jellies business in 1995 (not exact on the year) and, failing to find a partner to expand the theme park and develop the land they did own, sold to CF in 97. From all I have read and heard, they (Knott family) were very conservative, and did not want to have all the financial risk on them, so they looked at partnerships such as with MOA.So, not that I have to 'prove' anything or back it up with facts on a simple message board, but I have shown a few things: 1.) Knott's had exclusive park rights in the United States to Snoopy in 1983; 2.) They chose to become involved in the development of KCS MOA; 3.) Cedar Fair acquired those rights in 1997 when they purchased Knotts; 4.) CF became the manager of CS MOA when they acquired Knott's, for the duration of the pre existing contract.What we don't know: When CF acquired Knott's did they lose exclusivity? If they did, why roll out CS in their other parks? Is the pre existing management contract from 92 up now (as opposed to being cancelled), and if it is not being renewed, does MOA have the right to use the 'Camp Snoopy' name? What if VF! wants to add a CS now, can they, no longer having an interest in MOA? We won't know these things until March, as CF did not elaborate, and I checked and there is nothing on the CS MOA website in press releases talking about the cancellation of the management contract yet.
*** This post was edited by Jazma 1/8/2005 1:17:54 PM ***

I'm sorry, but you're needlessly repeating both yourself and information which is well known. All I want is evidence regarding the contractual exclusivity of any license to the Peanuts characters. Your only proof in that matter has been this: "I did find a quote ... that the Schulz family did sign an exclusive clause." Where is this quote? What is the actual language of the contract? What is the status of that agreement when ownership of both the licensor and licensee has changed?

It's certainly not impossible for Camp Snoopy to now need special engagements to continue to use its name, but that's pure unqualified speculation at this point.*** This post was edited by flogbert 1/8/2005 3:59:35 PM ***

^Forget it. We'll all find out soon enough in March. It's certainly not that important in the scheme of life.

And FYI.........I gave you an entire quote.....re-read carefully above.
*** This post was edited by Jazma 1/8/2005 7:39:11 PM ***

I think CF did not elaborate on the Press Release on exactly what is going with Camp Snoopy is because they are not in the position too. It's up to Mall of America to issue a press release.

Edit: MOA did look here http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2005/01/03/daily53.html

*** This post was edited by carlo18 1/8/2005 10:53:48 PM ***

So to me, it seems like the CF mgt. is limited in what they can do when expansion issues come up under the current contract, and instead of negotiating a new contract, a company that already has exp. with this type of arrangement is going in house on mgt. to expand the park (a good thing!).

More than likely, they will still keep the license, and as was stated earlier, it would probably be better to pay for a license instead of license and management contract.

If so, then CF still gets some $$$, and the park has ability to expand.

Not seeing a problem here at all:).