Daniel Snyder considering purchase of all or part of Six Flags

The problem I see with the CF-SF merger is that there is too much difference in the philosophies in running parks between the two companies. That alone would cause some rifts. Also there are few parks in the SF chain that would mesh well with the already established CF parks (ie. SFGAm, SFFT, and perhaps SFStL). This will be an interesting development and should be watched closely. I just hope that we don't see something stupid happen.

-D

For the first time , in a long time most of us agree. Snyder would be very bad for SF's as we know it.

1. Sell Sell Sell. Whatever gets the best price. Land or park.

2. He is only out for a buck, nothing more. He wants to make back all of the money he has lost. You can't blame him, but it would ruin the parks.

3. Someone said, no matter what happen SF's, it will be very different in 5 years. I totally agree.

4. Breaking down the chain, may help clean the parks, but most likely will end the coaster building we all love.

5. His statagey for improving the park does not address the real issues.

*** This post was edited by Markieb 4/26/2005 9:58:21 AM ***

Pole Guy: Sorry, Danny, you must be THIS tall to ride 'The Boardroom.'

Danny: But I wanna I wanna I WANNA!!!

-CO

I own stock in sixflags .

IF he attempts to buy the company and they hold a vote. I will be the first person to vote against it.

I fear the real estate problem also. One only has to look back in history to see the number of trolley parks that were demolished in the name of development. At SFA, housing is closing in all sides. Next to Evangel Church (the Mega Church across the street), there was a sign for more housing coming soon. I'm sure someone would be salivating over the thought of acquiring SFA. My memory may be distorted, but I remember the one time I visited Wild World, we came down Central Ave. and there was none of the housing that is there today.

On a positive note, even if someone were to acquire some of the existing land surrounding the park, there is plenty of land left in the existing park for expansion. Apart from some of the obvious locations (between S:ROS and Batwing, down by S:ROS's 1st helix), there are plenty of spaces in Southwest Territory for some flats, or maybe even a Pandemonium-type coaster that could wrap around Tower of Doom.

"Six Flags already has the product. The product and the marketing message are fine. It's the condition of the product that is an issue."

Jeff is right, improving the condition of the product should help reverse the attendance and revenue slide. But the other thing to consider is the condition of the balance sheet as well. The debt is absolutely crushing. With $2.1 billion in long term debt, their debt load is 2x revenue (not earnings, but revenue). I have to wonder how many parks' revenue goes just toward servicing this debt each year.

Joel

---

2. He is only out for a buck, nothing more. He wants to make back all of the money he has lost.

---

A stock holder in a for-profit company being in it for the money? Say it ain't so!

I was very interested in buying Six Flags stock lately because I really feel that the company is on the rebound, but this will halt me in my tracks.

After all these years under Premier's management, they finally realized that it isn't all about the teenagers going to the park. It makes a ton more sense to invest in the entire family experience, because three, four or five people spending money is more money than one. Families keep the parks cleaner. Families enjoy the shows and older rides that have been neglected over the last five years.

Look at the capital expendatures Six Flags has made in the past two years now, and it is quite apparent that they are going back toward a family approach. This is the right approach. This will gain them a LOT in the way of attendance, that they lost since starting the "build bigger, faster, now" craze of the three or four years before that when attendance plummetted.

How would Synder run the company? By his comments and his letter, by doing the things that got Six Flags to this point -- In other words, catering toward teenagers again. It didn't work before, it won't work again.

As for selling assets to play down debt, that's a nice idea but if they did that, they kill their money makers. Sell of SFGAdv? It might get them 800 million (if they can convince Cedar Fair to pay that much for it... who else would?) but it would also remove one of the biggest revenue generating parks from the chain. If Synder successfully talks them into selling their largest assets -- SFGAdv, SFGAm and SFMM -- the chain probably won't be in good shape either.

Synder needs to keep his nose out of it. Six Flags is fine, but unlike a "regular" business, most of the customers only come to a park once a year... so instead of seeing attendance rise in one year based on improvements, Six Flags generally has to wait a year or two, especially with the family stuff. Changing that theory now would totally alienate families, and I doubt the chain would ever or could ever recover.

Ah well. Here's a vote of hope for Synder just giving up and selling his 8.75%.

Ugh... why do people continue to refer to Premier as some separate entity? It's not. Six Flags is the company formerly known as Premier Parks.