Continued: Cedar Fair announces Geauga Lake will be water park only

lol....tell me you're kidding, right? If you own a successful shop you don't buy the one across the street that's failing. You let it fail on it's own! In 2004 CP wasn't being hurt by SF and that park was on a downword spiral. *** Edited 10/18/2007 5:08:35 PM UTC by Peabody***

---

Ensign Smith said:
I think you're correct about the divide, although I don't know if I would call it "feelers" vs "thinkers". Maybe the "passionate" vs the "dispassionate".

---

That's exactly something a 'feeler' would say. ;)

I prefer 'realists' vs 'idealists' :)

---

rollergator said:
Hate to say it (and I know it's probably not the news you wanted)....I think I *am* your happy medium.

---

I'll give you that. I'll gladly go on record saying that without a doubt, Gator is the most middle-of-the-road enthusiast participating around here.

---

CoasterDad64 said:
As for the the comment about Thinkers and Feelers. These two "types" do not really correlate to Passion.

You can be a Passionate Thinker (I think that desribes me pretty well) or a Dispassionate Feeler - although most Dispassionate Feelers may be considered poseurs ;) "I am sad, but I don't care."

---

I love that. Good stuff.

"Feeler, whoa, whoa, whoa, feeler . . .
I wish I'd never met you, Lake.
You'll never come again . . ."

---

Ensign Smith said:
Just like you can never tell an old car lover that his '63 Mustang is just a machine. You could tell him, but he won't hear you.

---

Perhaps they need a "MustangBuzz.com" so that he can be told that he is wrong about how he feels and thinks... and that in the end, a Mustang is nothing more than a machine that makes a large company a hefty sum of cash. I'm sure an ROI discussion would be had as well. ;)

Ray P.

I'm still not seeing why the only viable option was to close the entire rides side. If you figure out you're getting 700,000-800,000 people or so, why not tailor the park to that number of guests? If that means removing some rides, relocating others within the park, adding some newer but smaller attractions, so be it.

A lot of people have commented that nobody ever went there. Since when is 700,000 people nobody? A lot of parks in this country would love to have so many nobodies walk through their gates each season. Is there some magic attendance number that if it isn't reached, the park must close?

P.S. Get your feelers off of me.

Because cars are just like $145 million amusement parks! :)

---

Peabody said:
lol....tell me you're kidding, right? If you own a successful shop you don't buy the one across the street that's failing. You let it fail on it's own! In 2004 CP wasn't being hurt by SF and that park was on a downword spiral.

---

You're wasting your breath. That logic has been brought up countless times and he continues to believe what he wants to believe.

---

RatherGoodBear said:
I'm still not seeing why the only viable option was to close the entire rides side. If you figure out you're getting 700,000-800,000 people or so, why not tailor the park to that number of guests? If that means removing some rides, relocating others within the park, adding some newer but smaller attractions, so be it.

---

Two words: Property tax. Removing a few rides doesn't remove that burden.

---

ProgRay said:
Perhaps they need a "MustangBuzz.com" so that he can be told that he is wrong about how he feels and thinks... and that in the end, a Mustang is nothing more than a machine that makes a large company a hefty sum of cash. I'm sure an ROI discussion would be had as well.

---

If not for that reason, at least so people can go complain how a website about something they dig is run.

People could offer unreasonable solutions to their mustang issues with no concern as to why it doesn't benefit Ford to cater to them specifically and then get miffed when more reasonable minds speak up blaming everyone around them when their opinion is disagreed with. ;)

The circle of life... :) *** Edited 10/18/2007 6:20:42 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

---

Jeff said:
That's the irony is that those of us who understand the business side of it aren't exactly cheering either. I lost my summer lunch time distraction.

---

The "Feelers" in this scenario are not necessarily people who don't understand the business side. Many of them just don't care about it. There is a bit of a difference there that I think is worth pointing out.

I can't speak for the "Conspiracy People". :)

- Jeff

---

Uncle Coaster said:The "Feelers" in this scenario are not necessarily people who don't understand the business side. Many of them just don't care about it. There is a bit of a difference there that I think is worth pointing out.

---

So by nature their argument is flawed as they're not considering the entire picture.

(that's 'thinker' speak right there :) )

---

I can't speak for the "Conspiracy People". :)

---

"Conspiracy People" are just 'feelers' who rationalize their emotions with faux logic. ;)

---

RatherGoodBear said:
I'm still not seeing why the only viable option was to close the entire rides side. If you figure out you're getting 700,000-800,000 people or so, why not tailor the park to that number of guests?

---

When your goal is to completely shut down the park & sell off the property, it doesn't matter how many people are still coming thru the gate.

Can the property tax for the Seaworld side be that much less that it would support that side not closing too? time will tell, my guess is that within 5 years the only thing recognizable will indeed be "geauga lake" (the body of water)

So, they must have a buyer for the land on the ride side...otherwise they are still paying the same property tax on land that no one is visiting? Might as well have kept the park open to make at least some money if there was no buyer. I never understood why CedarFair bought this park, and am more confused now than I ever was. My little nephew could have told you how important killer whales were to the area.

Interesting how "those of us" who saw the removal of several rides, the lack of any substantial improvements, the continued lack of action with the old water park as a bad sign for the park were ridiculed for not understanding the business because "they were rightsizing the park and making brilliant moves."

I guess the "thinkers" aren't capable of thinking too deeply, or else it must be those Cedar Fair colored glasses.

I'm sure their plan is to unload that property as fast as they can, unless some alternate plan that involves generating revenue comes first. I suppose that's why they hired consultants, to figure that out.

If you're really curious about how much land they own, look up the tax maps in the respective Geauga and Portage Counties' auditor Web sites. I think you'll be pretty surprised about just how much they have on the Geauga side.

---

Lord Gonchar said: I'll gladly go on record saying that without a doubt, Gator is the most middle-of-the-road enthusiast participating around here.

---

Thanks...I think...(or is it feel?) :)

LOL, just remember to warn me when there's a bus coming down the middle of that road! Sometimes I get caught looking TOO far ahead... ;)

*** Edited 10/18/2007 8:22:34 PM UTC by rollergator***

What's your point, millrace? They were "rightsizing" the park. It wasn't enough, obviously, but the outright failure of the park doesn't invalidate those moves. Throwing money at the park wouldn't have been a good idea either, as Six Flags demonstrated. We've been over this.

Looks like Kennywood won.

You know that phrase " A object in motion tends to stay in motion"? Well people, that's what's happening with GL right now as they tear stuff down, pack it up, and ship it elsewhere.

We are way past the point of anyone stopping this from happening. Once some of the other Cedar Fair parks start seeing visible construction of former GL rides and realize that it benefits their park, I think a lot fewer people will feel hurt or angry.

---

Lord Gonchar said:
So by nature their argument is flawed as they're not considering the entire picture.

---

If they are arguing the business side with their feelers on (so to speak), then yes they are flawed. If they are simply saying that it sucks that a park is closed or ride is removed, then no.

It just gets ugly when the two different discussions get intertwined. :)

- Jeff

Ahhh, I see. You propose keeping each side seperate. That's fine, but then nobody sees the big picture. ('cept Gator...stuck in the middle)

I'm of the mindset that the two different sides have to be intertwined.

For the record the right answer to the whole discussion is:

"I feel bad that the park had to close, but I think the park made the best decision considering the circumstances"

The further from that answer you are in your sentiments - the more wrong you are. ;)