Geauga Lake auction dates 6/17 & 6/18

Monday, March 17, 2008 3:42 PM
That's true, because it's not just what's being said, it's often about who's saying it. Then again, I think part of the appeal to most debates around here is the drama that comes attached to them. A perfectly-intelligent conversation might get no attention whatsoever, but a heated debate draws in people like free money, even if all they do is complain about the noise.
Monday, March 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Whats funny is that Im guessing that most ACErs (or uber enthusiasts) actually dont really care too much about GL closing. For one all the good coasters (except BD, but compared to most parks closing one coaster isnt that bad comparatively) are already at other parks. For another thing, the bad rap of GL has deterred a lot of people from going there on their trips (heck it detered me last summer, I could have gone, but could not see myself driving further then KI and CP and even worse, driving right by CP) anyways.

Most of the pissed off people are locals, who have at least some of these characteristics:
-Strong "emotional" connection to the park
-For whatever reason dont like/want/able to go to CP/Kennywood/Knobeles/HP
-Lost their favorite babysitter
-Were employees

Also as said before most enthusiasts are not going to stage a "publicity nightmare" because:
-They dont want to piss off CF and lose access to having coaster events/ERTs at their parks
-Dont want to give their organization a bad name
-Have no real connection to the place.

The people who are capable of doing this will not be at an ACE convention but will still be in the area and still capable of staging an event, so why in the world would CP purposely schedule it during an ACE convention?

*** Edited 3/17/2008 7:59:15 PM UTC by Touchdown***

2020 Trips: Canceled by Corona

Monday, March 17, 2008 4:02 PM
As much as I want to disagree, you're completely right. Most enthusiasts don't care about the closing of Geauga Lake, and there was proof of that at pretty much every mid-winter non-riding event connected to ACE (Coasterbash, Eastcoaster, etc.). The simple truth is that many enthusiasts are saddened by the loss of a nice, historic park but don't want to risk losing their relationship with a company that owns a lot of other coaster-rich parks that often cater to them.

I guess that's what I like about this site. Even though it's never been all that popular to mourn the loss of Geauga Lake, and even less popular to suggest there was more to the park's closing than what Cedar Fair led everyone to believe, I've been able to speak my mind about it.

Monday, March 17, 2008 5:32 PM

Sure it's plausible, because a great number of things are plausible.

I have a feeling you are confusing the words "possible" and "plausible".

Plausible means, among other things:

4. a. Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable, probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly) spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.

(Courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary)

As I wrote above, when I think about this, nothing about the claim "CF scheduled this to take advantage of an ACE calendar conflict" seems "reasonable, probable, or truthful".

Amusingly, I like the "former" definition better in this case---"a false appearance of reason". Even more amusing is the next definition in the list:

b. Of a person: convincing or persuasive, esp. with the intention to deceive.

So, possible? Sure. Plausible? Not from where I sit, it's not.

Monday, March 17, 2008 8:23 PM
Jeff's avatar

Rob Ascough said:
Considering how Cedar Fair seems to have gone to great lengths to ignore questions about their decision to close the park- including many questions from enthusiast groups- it's entirely plausible that Cedar Fair might have arranged for the auction to coincide with an enthusiast event.
It's not even a little plausible, Rob. You're confusing "great lengths to ignore" with "not hearing what we want." They responded in every newspaper article with "exploring options to sell the rides" or whatever, and they've said over and over that they closed the park because it wasn't working. What more explanation do you want? They could've said they made a deal with God to cure cancer in return for closing the park and you wouldn't be satisfied.

Rob Ascough said:
Even though it's never been all that popular to mourn the loss of Geauga Lake...
Oh please... no one takes exception with the mourning. It's all the conspiracy nonsense that's "unpopular."

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:22 AM
What more explanation do you want? They could've said they made a deal with God to cure cancer in return for closing the park and you wouldn't be satisfied.

And here comes the drama that was the topic of conversation only yesterday.

I'm not confusing anything. The media tried for months to get Cedar Fair to respond to the closing of the park. They may still be trying, I honestly have no idea. I know shareholders who want anwers as well, because hard as it may be to believe, some people aren't satisfied to know Cedar Fair spent $110 million on the park and then claimed "it wasn't working" a mere four years later. This has nothing to do with "not hearing what we want", unless that includes wanting to know the truth, in which case "great lengths to ignore" is entirely appropriate.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:27 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar Why is "It wasn't turning a profit and we could get a better ROI by selling it" not enough truth?

Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:06 PM
Jeff's avatar That's exactly what I was asking. What more is there to say?

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:25 PM
eightdotthree's avatar Ha ha, maybe an apology will work?

We, Cedar Fair sincerely apologize for locals not supporting the park in its final years. We regret the decision to close the park, but unfortunately we can not continue to invest in a park that no one in the region wants to attend.

*** Edited 3/18/2008 6:25:36 PM UTC by eightdotthree***

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:52 PM
I don't know, if I were a shareholder, I'd want to know why a $110 million investment didn't work out after only four years, especially when you consider the negative press that came in the wake of the decision. That's all I'm saying.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:58 PM
^I agree, Rob. For myself, I try to AT LEAST admit when I did something wrong that has a negative effect on others. Being human, sometimes I don't realize how I affected someone else until they tell me.

I'm pretty sure CFair is well aware of the people they have harmed (pissed off, saddened, etc.), at this point.

That's all they could do at this point. The place is obviously nearly cleaned out.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:03 PM
eightdotthree's avatar I am not a stock holder so I can't speak to that.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:25 PM
Jeff's avatar As a unit holder, I want to know why they didn't let go sooner! Listen to the conference calls... they've been over it several times. "Only four years" is a whole lot of time for a company not used to losing money at anything.

And how many times had you been there again, Rob?

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 4:07 PM
Just because somebody doesn't live remotely close to an amusement park doesn't mean they don't get to have a voice in this discussion. AstroWorld was always too far for me to get to, but that didn't mean I wasn't saddened by its closing.

And for the record, I have logged more than 90 visits to GL since its rebranding as SFO.

My author website:

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 4:18 PM
Jeff's avatar I just find it amusing that someone so vocal in the discussion about what a gem it was apparently didn't spend much time there. So yeah, he gets a voice, and it's amusing.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 4:20 PM
^^^ How many times had I been to the park? Not sure what you're asking.

You want to know why they didn't let go sooner? Then why don't they explain that if that's what people want to know? Still, I think it highly unrealistic of a company to purchase a park and expect it to turn a profit immediately. Didn't they know that the park was losing money? If they expected an immediate return, they should have known better than to purchase the park. Not that we haven't been over this a few hundred times already...

*** Edited 3/19/2008 1:44:07 AM UTC by Rob Ascough***

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 6:52 PM
Jeff's avatar It wasn't turning around. It wasn't going to turn around. The first bad decision was buying it at all. You and others keep bringing up this, "Well if they just gave it time argument." Time to do what? What do you know that they didn't?

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:54 PM
Do we seriously have to go over the whole litany of things that CF did/didn't do, that any idiot could tell you was the completely wrong way to turn the park around if that was their intent? I mean, seriously? My god, talk about your dead horses.

My author website:

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:43 PM
How would you know how much I visited the park, Jeff? I spent more time at that park (eight hours away from my house) in the last three years than I did at nearby Great Adventure and Dorney Park combined. Next time you think my voice is amusing, make sure you know why you're laughing. Of course, I've always found your blind faith in corporate decison-makers to be rather comical, so who am I to talk?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:55 PM
Jeff's avatar I don't know how much time you spent there. That's why I asked. Duh.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Silly Nonsense


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC