Dan Snyder and SFI

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:13 PM
I found this article interesting, what do you think?


Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:23 PM
K. Shortly after they took over, I said "Snyder's a shark, don't think he's some sort of white knight here to save the day". And was promptly shouted down by idealistic fools.

Starting to get the Snyder picture yet?

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:40 PM
Johnny Cash sums this up pretty well.

"I fell in to a burning ring of fire
I went down,down,down
and the flames went higher.
And it burns,burns,burns
the ring of fire
the ring of fire."

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:44 PM
Heh, that's pretty much a checklist of reasons why I like the guy.

I don't know enough about the guy or the Skins to question much of the article, but based on what I do know, it seems obviously slanted.

"Stock in the company has sunk more than 50 percent this year, from a high of $11.93 to $5.27 a share as of Tuesday’s close of business."

Yes, but it only went that high after this guy took over. It was hanging in the mid-$5 range just a couple months before Red Zone took over control of things. Basically nothing changed - and while that's not exactly a ringing endorsement, it's not exactly the ugly situation the article tries to convey.

But whatever...

(I wanna be Daniel Snyder when I grow up :) )

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:16 PM
Sure, he might be a jerk, but I don't get the impression he's making a lot of day-to-day decisions for Six Flags.

Let's have some perspective too... he's running a sports team. Sports teams don't cure cancer or anything noble like that, so I don't think one way or another about that part of his operation runs. As for Six Flags New Orleans, I hate to say it, but I wouldn't reopen either. All of the good will in the world doesn't change the fact that it's not a great place to setup shop, especially for a leisure business. So if the best they can do is sublet the land, I say go for it. The reconstruction of New Orleans will cost money no matter what. I don't see it as being opportunistic or taking advantage of the city.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:23 PM

...but I don't get the impression he's making a lot of day-to-day decisions for Six Flags.

That's ok, I'd like to be Mark Shapiro when I grow up too. ;)

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:32 PM
One thing about Snyder that I don't like is the wallet raping of his customers. Parking at Redskins games and some of the Six Flags parks is just too much.

Heck, even Universal Orlando doesn't even charge as much for parking as SFGAdv!

I hope they have a better strategy than just increasing prices; Dan seems to be fond of this.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:16 PM
At least one of the the top ten questions was answered about why an amusment park would rent out their parking lot:) (see other thread from a member who had some interesting questions).
Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:51 PM
i could care less how he runs Six Flags, thankfully Shapiro is calling most of the shots.

i just want Snyder to sell my Redskins before he runs them even further into the ground...and thats my off coaster topic rant for the week lol.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:19 PM
Snyder isn't running or ruining the Redskins. Look at the coach and I'm a huge Joe Gibbs fan. I wish people would quit blaming the owner. He's pretty much given Joe Gibbs total control of the Redskins Geezzz..

For another view on Dan Snyder read this article.


Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:51 PM

rablat5 said:
One thing about Snyder that I don't like is the wallet raping of his customers.
And every last one of them is willing, so don't ask me to sympathize.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:27 AM

Jeff said:

rablat5 said:
One thing about Snyder that I don't like is the wallet raping of his customers.
And every last one of them is willing, so don't ask me to sympathize.

Attendance dropped this year. Don't be so sure.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 1:04 AM

Vincent Greene said:
Attendance dropped this year. Don't be so sure.

That tends to sting less given the 13% increase in per cap spending.

(ignoring the obvious flaws in the attendance still dropped under Red Zone argument)

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:43 AM
Attendance up or down, per cap spending up or down - makes no difference. The measure is - did operating profits increase? The answer for 2006 is NO. So Red Zone did not achieve their goal for 2006. Granted it was the first year. 2007 will be a better test of their plan. If the per cap goes up again and attendance drops again and the op profits drop again the stockholders that annoited Red Zone last year will be calling for their heads.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:44 AM
We've heard it (and many of us have said it) countless times. This is a business. A business needs money to survive. When a business is in as much debt as Six Flags it takes time and radical changes to get it back under control.

We would all like better a better park experience, but until the organization stops bleeding, they need to focus on the bottom line.

Do I agree that all of their decisions are good ones, no. But I am not in their shoes.

Also, the Cedar Fair comparisons are not truly accurate either. These are two very different companies, with very different history, business structures, and long term goals.

The goal for us, the customer, is the same, but the goal of management is different. Cedar Fair wants to provide a quality guest experience while systematically paying down its debt and providing profit for its unit holders. Six Flags needs to get out of debt very quickly.

Pardon the medical analogy, but to me it seem like comparing a cold with a heart attack. If you have a cold (CF) you need some care, but overall, you are fine; if you're having a heart attack, drastic measures are needed to save your life.

Saving Six Flags will not take a couple of years, it will take a decade. If they rush to "fix" the experience the way folks want it done here, there won't be a Six Flags at the end of the decade. Enjoy what you can and look forward to a better Six Flags. What have you got to lose?

*** Edited 12/27/2006 1:46:19 PM UTC by CoasterDad64***

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 10:34 AM
"And every last one of them is willing, so don't ask me to sympathize."

Well, some people have no choice if they want to go to a certain park or ride certain rides.

I'm tired of you guys defending Six Flags' pricing. Dan Snyder deserves the Unsportsman of the Year award. Six Flags is charging more than most other major amusement parks for parking, including the destination Orlando parks. They are NOT offering a superior product, yet they are taking advantage of the people who can't afford to go to any parks but the "local" Six Flags.

You can pay the high parking fees if you like, but that still doesn't excuse Six Flags' lack of good guest treatment and customer service.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:09 AM
God, I love these SF threads. :)

What's funny to me is that on the long list of things wrong with SF parks, pricing is the least of their problems.

Ironically, it's also the only one directly attributable to Snyder/Shapiro.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:47 AM
Let me put it this way, rablat5, amusement parks and pro sports are a luxury. Everyone has a choice.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:03 PM
(fade in to dramatic black and white shots of children not riding coasters)

"All over this country in cities like Louisville, Atlanta and Buffalo, children have no choice but to visit their local Six Flags park. These parks are among the most expensive in the United States. These children don't have the same luxuries as the children in Elysburg, PA or Santa Claus, IN. In their world drinks cost $4 and parking is $15. Just 60 cents a day - less than a cup of coffee - can send these kids to their local amusement park for a day of fun. Won't you see it in your heart to give. You can make a difference."

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:25 PM
^^Will you use the CoasterImage voice, please . . . ;)


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC