CoasterBuzz Podcast #89 posted

^I think he meant family as in a family ran park. Not a corporation.

---

What does that even mean? Run it like a family park? Are those people I saw there something other than families?

---

An emphasis on rides the whole family enjoys--not 420 ft strata coasters or rides that scare 8 year olds.

CP is a "thrill" park. (Yes, I know they have plenty of non thrill rides, but it is TTD not Camp Snoopy in the ads). GL needed to be a park that had a Tilt-O-Whirl, a Musik Express, a Monster, and similar rides--not 10 roller coasters.

CF never got the add and market smaller, family friendly rides part.

Gonch pointed out after his midwest trip that it's nice to go on rides the entire family can ride together. You don't have to market GL as a 10 coaster park, but you do have to add some flats so you can market GL as a park for families, not coaster enthusiasts.

Sigh. "Family" park? How is that? A small park with a fair amount of "tame" rides that is mainly focused on picnics and a relaxed day of affordable fun for the entire family. As apposed to the massive concrete-laden park with monstrous thrill rides and non-stop fun at a normally higher price. Yes, families attend both. But, you already knew that. How many people on this board and PointBuzz say Cedar Point isn't "family" enough even though tons of families go there? How many people praise Knoebel's and Kennywood for being small, "family-friendly" parks? That's what I meant.

I consider Holiday World a family park (regardless of who owns it). Yes, they are experiencing a huge amount of growth and profit. But, do they have the park giants in close proximity to them? Not nearly as many as Geauga Lake. That's why I think Geauga Lake would only be able to survive as a SMALL park that made a decent amount of profit, but not nearly as much as a publicly owned company like Cedar Fair wants. You've said Cedar Fair likes to make money for its shareholders. So, they're not going to operate a park like Geauga Lake if it only pulls in a small profit. But, if it were owned by a family who only operated that park and had a love for operating it, they would be happy with any profit.

Geauga Lake can obviously make money. I believe it's the amount of money it can make that is what closed it.

---

Geauga Lake can obviously make money.

---

Yes it possibly could have, but the important thing to remember that it hasn't been. At least not for the past 5 or so years under both Six Flags and Cedar Fair. No company dumps a profitable or potentially profitable venue.

---

I believe it's the amount of money it can make that is what closed it.

---

Did I interpret this correctly? You say Geauga Lake was closed because Cedar Fair was troubled by the fact that Geauga Lake COULD make a good deal of money -- and let me guess -- probably "take away" from Cedar Point? Let me make this clear. Cedar Point and Geauga Lake are both owned by the same company. Competing or not, all that money still goes into the same pocket.

What kind of lala land do you live in where a company closes down a venue because it could potentially bring in money?

No, of course you didn't interpret that correctly because you didn't want to.

Geauga Lake CAN make money - it even made money when Cedar Fair owned it. But, it didn't make very much money. I'm saying they most likely closed it because they wanted it to make more money that it could actually make.

Let's say a family owned and operated the park. After all their expenses, the park brought in $500,000. If they loved operating the park and made a $500,000 profit each year, they'd most likely keep it open.

If a large corporation owns the park and it only pulls in $500k, they're going to say it's not successful and close it. It's all about perspective. Geauga Lake wasn't meant to be owned by a large corporation interested in large profits.

I wonder the same thing. He's describing to me pretty much Geauga Lake was after ditching X-Flight and the Impulse. And the comparison to Holiday World, well, they've got three of the most aggressive coasters I've ever been on. Even then, we all know that Holiday World's popularity mostly has to do with the water park anyway.

Thanks for clearing that up halltd. It's just the way you phrased your words that made me think you were suggesting something else.

^^ Holiday World has four coasters. Geauga Lake had eight coasters. Yeah, I guess you're right. Same thing. No matter what I say, you'll always come up with some nit picky reason why it's wrong.

I would still like to see someone lease the park side from Cedar Fair and run the park independently. Lets take a look....

Pros.. Most obvious, the amusement park stays. A smaller venue paying a landlord would be more likely to run it like a "family park" as defined above, since they aren't going to have mega millions to overbuild. The park compliments the water park side, CF gets some jing for the lease, and they wash their hands of maintenance and operations costs. The tenant makes a profit, smaller than CF would have liked to see, but everyone makes some bucks out of the deal and are content with it.

Cons.. The tenants would probably never commit to adding much of anything, for fear that when the lease is up, it would be all for naught. And the "landlord" may realize the park is doing OK and try to take it over when the lease is up. Then we're back to square one. Or, the park doesn't make enough to keep the place afloat and crashes and burns anyway...

What does anyone else think about that concept (not that it is even a remote option on the table)?

The more I hear about this, the more I think that with the property taxes on that land, the chance of operating a profitable amusement park there is zero to none.