Posted Friday, February 10, 2006 12:10 PM | Contributed by Jeff
For the year, Cedar Fair's net revenues increased 5% to a record $568.7 million from $542.0 million in 2004. This was the result of a 1% increase, or 103,000 visits, in combined attendance, a 3% increase in average in-park guest per capita spending and a 12% increase, or $10.2 million, in out-of-park revenues, including resort hotels. Over this same period, operating income increased 17%, or $19.5 million, to $137.3 million.
Read the press release from Cedar Fair.
And even SF under the old management couldn't miss THOSE numbers, they speak for themselves...
I understand Cedar Fair wants to draw families. That's fine. I think they need to separate Cedar Point from Geauga Lake at Halloween time by offering two totally different experiences for families (Knott's Scary Farm anyone?) Not only that, but market them as such. Kennywood keeps looking better and better each year for their Fall productions.
What's worse than having Cedar Fair and Geauga Lake being relatively the same Halloween production. This year Geauga Lake won't even have one.
I hope they higher ups are just taking it away this year to revamp their thinking and put on one heck of a show in 2007.
*** This post was edited by RollerCoasterGod 2/11/2006 1:03:33 PM ***
Also, I don't think that the Halloween events have total say in 4Q profits. Let's not forget the indoor waterpark/hotel next to CP that helped boost profits.
All-in-all, this is good to hear. And the distribution will be coming next week, too. :)
Lines for Phobia were hitting some pretty nice lenghts also and the Fright Zone was usually pretty busy untill the last half hour. Again, as long as the weather wasn't freezing or wet.
*** This post was edited by Red Garter Rob 2/11/2006 4:04:33 PM ***
But regardless of the nomenclature, I think you're right - it'll be more profitable using the same decorations.
I personally think that the haunt will return in a few years - after Geauga Lake (under CF leadership) gets a bit of their attendance back, and it becomes financially feasible to bring it back.
I thought it was interesting that Kinzel addressed the Paramount Parks' sale in his opening remarks...it was pretty clear that he didn't want the question over and over again from the analysts. Basically, it was just the same statement about their fudiciary responsibility to review all possible opportunities for growth--including Paramount Parks--but no decision on bidding would be made without complete due diligence, yada, yada... (You know, the standard answer that any smart CEO of a public company would provide...)
You must be logged in to post