Word is coming back now that the higher-ups had some things to say to staff during Geauga Lake's orientation, and one thing that they mentioned is a real jaw-dropper. I've heard from several different people that while it is not set in stone, the park is working towards having the new Wildwater Kingdom open as a separate-admission attraction for the 2006 season. This isn't watercooler talk or a rumor; this is straight from people who have returned from their training over the weekend.
In my opinion, they would have to be morons to charge people a separate fee to use the waterpark a year after they preached to us about the "two parks for one low price" feature of Geauga Lake. It has been brought up time and time again how the waterpark and dry rides combination makes the park such an attractive offer, and they would be shooting themselves in their collective feet by splitting them into separate gates. While I'll admit that the park has a fine collection of rides, I'd rather drive the extra hour to Cedar Point or Hershey than go to Geauga Lake; it's the fact that I can hop between the water rides and dry rides under one admission that keeps me coming back time and time again. People are NOT going to be happy after they see hours of commercials advertising admission structure, and come back the next year to see that they have to pay much more to do the same things...
Unless they are planning another MAJOR rennovation/expansion/addition for 2006, seperating the gates is crazy. They would really have to double the attractions to go from pay one price to paying seperate admission, otherwise people won't see why they should have to pay extra after getting it for free.
Remember phase 2 is opening in 2006... That's good enough reason to charge a seprate admission as long as it's around 15-20 bucks and around 20-25 bucks for GL. I'm all-for it. More money for them to build more stuff.
If they keep the admission price quite reasonable like they have now which is around $25... AND they are considering to add a couple of new rides, especially a new signature attraction (ie: 200' hyper)... I'll be ok with paying a seperate admission to their waterpark. Their waterpark will be larger than Worlds of Adventure's was in 2003, and that had quite a bit of attractions to really keep you occupied there almost all day alone.
...however, if everything remains the same & all they do is just open Phase II of the waterpark next year and charge a seperate admission, I see the park's attendance dropping... ESPECIALLY if they are going to market the park in 2005 as 2-parks for the price of 1.
How can it be a separate gate from the get-go? Not all the slides are moving to the new location. Its not feasible to make it a separate gate this year.
IMHO if it is indeed a separate gate in 2006 guests be willing to pay if they feel they are getting their money's worth. I have a hard time beliving CF won't be able to market the new offerings successfully.
Well if they keep the admission down at $20 or $25 or whatever it is for the ride side... i can see them "or add on the water park for $5 more!" type of thing and since they will have new stuff in the water park I can see it happening somewhat...
I agree with the above statements. They'd never tell seasonals that even if it were true. The park itself has absolutely no idea how well received the park is going to be this year with the additions, or the further expansion next year.
It's stupid speculation by bored seasonals that want to feel important. Nothing more.
You are all making a fuss out of nothing. The possibility of separate gates has been discussed time and time again. We don't need to have this debate again.
They would never tell employees during orientation that the park is making the switch to two separate parks a year from now. I seriously feel like I should talk to Bill Spehn and put an end to this nonsense once and for all. If I remember, I'll mention this thread to him the next tim I see him.
You all need to calm down. It is this type of speculation that leads to rumors that turn out to be false.
EDIT: Well said Jeff. You beat me to my point!
2005 Geauga Lake Bellaire Express, El Dorado, Skycraper Team Lead. *** Edited 4/5/2005 1:51:48 AM UTC by Avalanche Sam***
What fuss is going on? Unlike everyone else, you seem to be the ONLY one that is causing problems. Nothing in this topic is out of line like you make it seem, its just a simple discussion about what is going on. Insted of telling us to stop fussing, look at yourself first, please.
Steve, there is no need to get personal here. People are making a fuss about some crazy rumor that has no factual basis whatsoever, not discussing some news development at the park.
There is no reason to believe that the park will go to separate fees for the water park for 2006, given the 2005 plans and marketing. A little common sense would tell you that, and this is coming from someone he has been said to lack common sense!
Anyway, I don't mean to flame anyone here. I just don't like seeing speculation like this about my park that is based on heresay.
2005 Geauga Lake Bellaire Express, El Dorado, Skycraper Team Lead.
Sam, as much as I appreciate your attempts to smash my credibility, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement that this is a "crazy rumor". I'm not going to guess what Bill and company are actually thinking; however, it is a fact that a training supervisor announced that she was under the impression that the park was seriously thinking about making Wildwater Kingdom a separate gate. I didn't hear this from random passerby; I have a huge amount of trust in the friends who told me this in the first place.
Maybe the supervisor was grossly mistaken--if this is the case, then I apologize for creating unnecessary discussion regarding the issue. My friends gave me permission to start the topic because they're concerned that the park would be making the wrong move, an opinion that apparently is shared by many people on this forum. I would not have started this topic if I did not feel that there was credible evidence--last I checked, announcements by training supervisors during staff training can be considered reasonably true. While I agree with Jeff that it would be unusual to tell seasonals things that are still under consideration, I am fully confident that such a thing was said. Like I said, I can't assure anyone that the training supervisor was fully informed or permitted to say such a thing; I'm simply posting what was said.