Close Magic Mountain? Residents Aren't Thrilled
Would you rather see SFMM destroyed and turned into condos? Or..
Would you rather see it sold to someone that will keep it open and make improvements? Or...
Could you care less either way?
All the dancing between the pro-sale people and the con-sale people is getting dizzying because everyone keeps repeating themselves. Let's just get to the bare-bones.
What I think will happen: destroyed and turned into condos.
I happen to agree with you, but I will add that the condo thing would piss me off, and that opinion has nothing to do with SFMM. *** Edited 7/8/2006 3:07:52 AM UTC by DWeaver***
Would you rather see SFMM destroyed and turned into condos? Or..Would you rather see it sold to someone that will keep it open and make improvements?
I don't think anyone---including Gonch---*wants* it to become condos. But, many of us understand why it might *be* condos.
Mamoosh said:
I'm just reading between the lines, DW.
I suspect your doing a bit more than that Moosh. ;)
DWeaver said:
Would you rather see SFMM destroyed and turned into condos? Or..Would you rather see it sold to someone that will keep it open and make improvements? Or...
Could you care less either way?
C. Plain and simple.
If it stays as a park, great - it's another park to hit next time I get out west.
If it closes tomorrow, great - it's $15 less parking to pay and one less scheduling duty next time I get out west.
I have no historic or preservation cause, I have no emotional attachment and in my completely uninformed opinion, I don't think the park is essential to the area, nor do I care if it is.
For the record, I would say the same thing about any park in the same situation. (and have :) )
From what I can decipher from the financial stuff, SFI is in big trouble as far as the schedule for paying down the debt goes. So I agree with Hayduke and the others here who say that any money raised from the sale of parks or property (for whatever use) will be used almost totally to pare down the debt. Not to improve any of the remaining parks, not to buy more costumes for characters to wear, not to buy barrels of Lysol for the bathroom attendants to spray around.
I don't know what the current dynamic is in the Valencia area re: development. By that I mean how receptive any of the decision makers are to additional housing or commercial development. If they feel there are already enough houses going up, they could make it difficult for anyone wishing to develop the MM site, as far as zoning changes or other approvals that may be required.
If there's a negative atmosphere, that could reduce the price a developer's willing to pay for the land. Since everyone knows how desparate SF is to get cash, it's pretty much a buyer's market already.
As far as the idea that they can't or they won't sell the park because it's too valuable to unload, realize that there are a lot of valuable items sitting in pawn shops because someone needed the cash more.
Dan Snyder is not a patient man. How many head coaches has he had since he's owned the Skins? Something like 5 in less than 10 years. Remember how Spurrier was the man who would lead them to glory? Wonder how long he'll give Shapiro to turn things around.
But even if Shapiro gets the axe, he'll get a very generous severance package (probably close to the amount they got for Astroworld) and he'll be free to accept another huge signing bonus from another company where he can wreak more havoc. Like someone else pointed out, even if the company fails, the RedZone crew can just say it wasn't their fault, previous management let things go too far for even them to turn around.
I remember once when I was scolded in here because I said I didn't care about something, had no interest and didn't think it was important. Think it had something to do with a weekly podcast. ;)
Coincidence? Snyder is used to taking over businesses in trouble.
He just didn't tell Shapiro how MUCH trouble, LOL.
Oh, and Spurrier is taking the SEC by storm all over again...beware the 'Cocks!
Also thinking along the lines of "perhaps by paying down the debt to the MAXIMUM possible, and keeping only parks that ARE making money, that SFI might get a better credit rating", which would CERTAINLY help alleviate some of the *interesting* pressures of the debt.
I think if you're not "earning your keep" in SFI, it's not going to be a case of the GM going to the unemplyment line ALONE...which IS a little short-sighted, but when you're facing down a rifle-barrel, I guess you don't notice the beautiful sunset on the horizon...
*** Edited 7/8/2006 7:58:02 AM UTC by rollergator***
DWeaver said:
But for discussions sake I wish people would stop ragging on people who hold an opposing opinion.
For discussion's sake you should probably quote those people who you think are actually doing that and point it out. Because honestly, I don't see that in this thread whatsoever. I also don't really understand what you mean by hiding behind Shapiro-isms or whatever, so until I see some quotes for that, too, I'll assume you're operating under perception as opposed to what people are actually posting in the thread.
What I personally see is a group of people having a fine discussion about the business that's involved here and a very, very select few getting offended that we're not outraged and pissed off instead.
The funny part being that there's a chance we *are* outraged and pissed off and saddened at the chance of losing this park, BUTT we just don't think this thread is a good place to be wah-wahhing and boo-hooing when it really doesn't add to the discussion, and really doesn't mean much at all.
MAybe one day somebody came up to them and said ill give you 250 million for magic mountain.
So they stated in their call that it was an OPTION
Now everybody is stating IT WILL BE SOLD.
ITs not sold yet and may not be sold.
The funny part being that there's a chance we *are* outraged and pissed off and saddened at the chance of losing this park, BUTT we just don't think this thread is a good place to be wah-wahhing and boo-hooing when it really doesn't add to the discussion, and really doesn't mean much at all.
I don't see anyone wah-wahhing or boo-hooing and that's not what I was asking for. Not sure what your talking about, but the people I wanted to respond to my questions already did...yesterday. I had a very specific reason for asking the question and it had nothing to do with what you pointed out.
That's what happens when you try and speak for *we* and not *yourself*.
Ok... off the *drama* and back into the conversation. ;) *** Edited 7/8/2006 3:06:43 PM UTC by DWeaver***
The point still remains that there were (are?) some in this thread that somehow seem to equate objective discussion about the park's potential closure with somehow *wanting* the park to close, which just seems so completely off base to me.
Oh and when I was saying *we* it wasn't someone specific except for those who are talking about this objectively as a business instead of some sort of moral argument. Not specifically Moosh or Gonch or anyone like that. Sorry, again, should have been clearer. ;) *** Edited 7/8/2006 5:45:27 PM UTC by matt.***
majortom1981 said:
why do you all assume that they are definately selling the park?
By SF issuing a press release that states basically "we'd like to sell these six parks, someone please make us an offer".
I see nobody rushing out to sign,let alone post online petitions demanding that SFEG or SFDL be kept open or remain in the chain but mention the possible sale of SFMM & all of a sudden every enthusiast is acting as if they're about to have a stroke or something.
If you haven't been on here long enough to remember that, consider yourself lucky I guess :)
You must be logged in to post
