Close Magic Mountain? Residents Aren't Thrilled

since there is actually no other credible contrary source, it's pointless to attempt to guess

I want to address this specifically. There are other credible sources: SEC filings on behalf of Six Flags and other theme park operators. They tell a very clear story about what one should "expect" to earn given a particular level of revenue. Plus, they give you a pretty good idea about what level of revenue is "expected".

And, if you do the math, either Magic Mountain is the single most profitable theme park in the universe, or something doesn't add up.

*** Edited 7/10/2006 4:16:46 PM UTC by Brian Noble***

http://cse.umich.edu/

Thank you for those posts, Brian. :)

coasterimage - lordgonchar

What is the point of saying "standing"? If the ride is not in operation then of course it is standing. If it is operating then it is standing. It is always standing. SBNO then when is it not standing is my question?

Brace yourself for this one:

Some rides that aren't operating aren't standing! They get torn down, demolished, or disassembled. Therefore: They are not standing.

Real Cbuzz quote of the day - "The classes i take in collage are so mor adcanced then u could imagen. Dont talk about my emglihs" - Adamforce

That's what I said peabody. So when when a ride is not operating do you tell the browser that the ride is standing.

It just didn't ring right in my ear when trying to understand SBNO. I'm taking something so stupid so far but im skeptical.

^There's no better term than SBNO to describe a ride or coaster that,while it hasn't been dismantled,removed etc. is still not open to guests for whatever specific reason applies to the ride in question.

Some things just "are" even if there's no logical sense behind it & the term SBNO is just one of those things.

No logical sense with the term? Am I the only one that doesn't have trouble with this?

Standing but Not Operating - It still stands, but it doesn't run.

Example: The New Orleans coasters. They're not demolished and turned into scrap, it's not in pieces, etc. *** Edited 7/10/2006 5:55:35 PM UTC by Peabody***

Real Cbuzz quote of the day - "The classes i take in collage are so mor adcanced then u could imagen. Dont talk about my emglihs" - Adamforce

RCDB lists 70 coasters in the US as SBNO. Use the search and see all the coasters included there. Some will probably never be run again, and others (Revolution from Libertyland) are going to be relocated and run in another park next year.

How else would you classify those coasters? "Yeah, it's still here, but don't drop by expecting to catch a ride."

As far as I know Brian, Del Holland is still GM of SFMM, unless something changed today...;)

Sorry for being pestamistic. It didn't register with me very well. It is one of those things that "are" even though there is no sense behind it. I'm happy with that. Thanks for all your time on such a dumb subject. I resign.

Del Holland is still GM of SFMM, unless something changed today...

My bad. I could have sworn that 'Moosh said he was gone. Perhaps it was just wishful thinking. ;)

http://cse.umich.edu/

I'm going to regret getting into this but I couldn't let this slide for some reason...

CoasterDiscern said:
It didn't register with me very well. It is one of those things that "are" even though there is no sense behind it.

I don't get what you are talking about? It makes perfect sense.

RatherGoodBear said:
How else would you classify those coasters? "Yeah, it's still here, but don't drop by expecting to catch a ride."

Exactly, how else would you classify a ride that is closed to the public but not operating? SBNO makes perfect sense.

Sorry, that's my rant for the month...

Putting the 'odd' in Todd since 1976...

And just to add my 2 cents, we are interested in the standing (but not operating) coasters because they haven't been torn down yet. There's still hope of catching a ride. Not to say that a dismantled ride might eventually be reassembled...

Anyway, Steel Dragon is standing and isn't operating. SBNO. Works for me. *** Edited 7/10/2006 9:16:49 PM UTC by janfrederick***

"I go out at 3 o' clock for a quart of milk and come home to my son treating his body like an amusement park!" - Estelle Costanza

How MANY coasters are SBNO? According to rcdb, which is likely the best source READILY available....a LOT.

http://www.rcdb.com/installationresult.htm?column=1,2,3,26,4,5&order=1,2&status=11

P.S. I'd say Del has been SBNO for *at least* 10 years that I am aware of...and I live 3,000 miles away! :(

*** Edited 7/10/2006 10:33:00 PM UTC by rollergator***

Is Del Holland also the same guy who gives the super boring, monotonous speaches everytime SFMM opens a new ride?

Yes he is.

There is a video floating around online somewhere of him giving the tatsu opening speech. He sounds about as fun as a tax audit.

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I can't really attest to the man's managment skills (although I'm sure I could easily make some guesses if needed, lol) but I think it's amazing that someone could get up there, and perform so *awkwardly* and *weirdly* in front of a crowd. I'm shocked that he doesn't realize that he's such a crappy representative of the park but even more shocked that someone (or some people) haven't suggested that they find someone else to make such speaches. Or maybe they had and the decision got trumped somewhere along the line.

Still though, you'd think they'd have found a better way to promote the park than have him mutter and stutter in front of the media for 5 minutes.

Ya and every one of those speeches is retardedly the same generic setup/formula, with plug-in words for the name of the particular new ride that he's about to give a speech about.

Brian Noble said:
since there is actually no other credible contrary source, it's pointless to attempt to guess
I want to address this specifically. There are other credible sources: SEC filings on behalf of Six Flags and other theme park operators. They tell a very clear story about what one should "expect" to earn given a particular level of revenue. Plus, they give you a pretty good idea about what level of revenue is "expected".
And, if you do the math, either Magic Mountain is the single most profitable theme park in the universe, or something doesn't add up.
*** Edited 7/10/2006 4:16:46 PM UTC by Brian Noble***

Well, feel free to write to the author of the article and tell him your opinion about him writing facts that are not true. I hear journalists are usually really nice about that sort of thing. Good luck. I personally have never had much luck with it.

It's impossible to apply simple math to SF's financial problems. The only person who is in a position to know beyond all certainty is the CFO and he isn't talking. Attempting to analyze their performance down to the park level is a waste of time. I'll stick with the quotes from the AP and from Del. If he says the park is profitable, then it is. End of story.

If the figures presented in the article conflict with a pre-held negative personal bias towards SFMM, then that is just the way it goes. I hold a negative opinion towards the wasted opportunities they squandered over the years. I'm not sure if they could ever be what their potential was back a decade or so ago. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.

Even now though, I'm slightly optimistic that the chain could turn around So to read that park is profitable, at some level, means that there could be a good future.That's all. *** Edited 7/11/2006 12:21:25 AM UTC by DBJ***

DBJ said:
I hear journalists are usually really nice about that sort of thing. Good luck.

Actually, they are. Your local newspaper probably runs corrections and retractions every single day.

Good try, though.

And LMAO at the "pre-held negative personal bias" part.

Sorry, one more edit. And even if the number was 100% accurately quoted from SF's accountants, it doesn't mean that there wasn't any creative math involved or anything like that. As previously stated, this article is not any sort of official financial filing and not neccasarily an issue with this reporter's journalistic skills, although it probably would have been nice to get a second opinion into that sort of thing. Like they say in the business: "Your mother says she loves you? Better check it out."

And one more thing, here's those corrections for this particular paper you think journalists aren't very nice about:

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/corrections/

*** Edited 7/11/2006 12:19:08 AM UTC by matt.*** *** Edited 7/11/2006 12:20:45 AM UTC by matt.***