If Six Flags folds... which would survive?

Monday, March 2, 2009 10:28 PM

Im a homer so I say Georgia, Texas, GAdv and probably GAm would probably be snapped up by SOMEBODY. They're very firmly entrenched and successful parks with fairly solid track records, and they all serve h buuge fairly affluent metro areas. Georgia would possibly be the weakest of what Ill call the Lock 3 due to alot of crime and stupidity (free admission day!!! bright.) in their history but I don't see land in Austell GA being all that expensive and as such worth bulldozing.


What are the obvious Six Flags to become malls or sporting arenas in the event of their failure/backruptcy?

+0
Monday, March 2, 2009 11:08 PM

SFOT and SFOG are not owned by SF, so I would go with those two for sure.

SFGAm is probably the most profitable park in the chain, so I would put this one at a near lock.

SFGAdv, SFFT, SFOStL, SFDK, and SFMM I would put in a "not surprised either way it happens" as I could see arguments either way.

SFNE is more of a long shot, it does not seemed to have gotten the love of the locals that much.

SFKK I dont know what will happen to it, with the fair and all but I doubt it would survive.


2017 Trips: WDW, Dollywood, Cedar Point, KI, SDC, BGW, BGT, SWO, Universal Orlando

+0
Monday, March 2, 2009 11:16 PM

I may be way off the mark, but wouldn't the chain have to completely run out of money to shut down operations company wide? What are the odds of that happening when they have parks bringing in truckloads of money on a nearly daily basis for several months of the year?

+0
Monday, March 2, 2009 11:44 PM
Jeff's avatar

If a company goes bankrupt, it doesn't mean that they disappear and stop operating.

And since when does Six Flags not own any of their parks? They may lease the land, but it doesn't mean that the things they build on it aren't their assets.


Jeff - Webmaster/Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Twitter - Video

+0
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 5:56 AM

Might CF snag SFNE & return it to it's origonal Riverside Park name?

Next to NOBODY has a clue about CP out here (aside from what they've seen on Travel Channel).

The only downside with SFNE is it's location. It's about two hours from Boston, but about an hour from Hartford.


Coaster Junkie from NH
I drive in & out of Boston, so I ride coasters to relax!

+0
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 6:46 AM

^^You sure about that, I thought the partnerships that own SFOT and SFOG actually own everything on in them.

This article suggests that SFOT could not disapear in a bankruptcy situation at the end due to the partnership owning 66% of everything: http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/1216840.html.

I imagine SFOG is in the same situation, that partnership once sued Time Warner for not adding enough rides.

Those parks are set up very differently from any other park in the chain, Ive always thought of their situation as very much like the old CF Camp Snoopy arrangement, with the exception of course of SFOT actually probably owning the name "Six Flags."


2017 Trips: WDW, Dollywood, Cedar Point, KI, SDC, BGW, BGT, SWO, Universal Orlando

+0
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 10:16 AM

You are correct Touchdown. SF Inc. only owns 34% of SFOT. The majority of the park is owned by the the Six Flags Texas Fund Limited, and SF Inc. has a contract to manage the park. After paying a management fee, part of the profits from the park go back into capital expenditures. New assets become property of the holding company (less the 34% owned by SFI). The situation is similar in Georgia.

The lawsuit from the group that owns SFOG was against SF Inc. for among other things, selling them the Schwarzkopf Shuttle Loop from SFGAm a couple of years ago at a price that was much higher than the market value. The suit also claimed SFI was witholding new capital such as a BTR because they were trying to lower the value of the park in an attempt to purchase it for themselves. They won that suit.

Last edited by Jeffrey Seifert, Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:34 AM
+0
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:11 AM
Jeff's avatar

Which illustrates my point that if SIX is putting up the cap ex, they likely own it. If not, they have a bad deal.

But regardless, my point stands that even if the company files chapter 11, it only means they have to reorganize and have a plan to come back. I bet they've had that plan for a long time.


Jeff - Webmaster/Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Twitter - Video

+0
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:32 AM

Even though SFI has a huge payment due in August that they are unlikely to be able to pay, it doesn't mean it's all over for them. It might be difficult to refinance that debt, but I think too many of the doomcasters are either unaware of the connection with Red Zone or are underestimating Red Zone's clout. They do have billions in assets. Like Jeff says, this payment isn't coming as a surprise, and SFI most likely has a plan.

+0
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:37 PM

Vincent Greene said:

What are the obvious Six Flags to become malls or sporting arenas in the event of their failure/backruptcy?

Not saying it will or won't happen, but many defunct parks don't "become" anything. Just like many old factories, stores, etc. that have gone out of business. The buildings are empty and the land just sits there unused.

In this economy especially, retail is probably hurting more than the entertainment sector. You'll see a lot more empty storefronts in your local malls before you will amusement parks.

+0
Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:02 PM

Most if not all will survive in bankruptcy (if/when)
A judge will determine the best way for
the company to pay there debt. A judge will probably
go with a plan submitted by six flags to run the parks and pay any profit towards the debt.Any capital purchase would have to be approved by the judge (so no new rides)
I would think with the fire sale that happened with Hard rock park the judge would have to be forced into a corner to order sale of the parks.
A forced sale might be better for us(as customers) because the new owners would not have the high debt six flags has and new rides would be more likely.
If judge allows six flags to run under bankrupcy
the stock may rise. If the judge orders sale of parks
the stockholder will probably get nothing.

Kevin

+0
Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:23 PM
sws's avatar

If a company declares bankruptcy, it does not mean that it will go out of business completely. Bankruptcy allows the company to restructure/renegotiate its debt and provides temporary protection from lenders. Inevitably stockholders are the biggest losers. Stockholders are on the bottom of the food chain. The stock becomes worthless. This is why SIX has been trading near a quarter a share for months. If a company is successful in re-emerging from bankruptcy, it can issue new stock to investors, however in general, the previous stockholders have completely lost their investment.

+0
Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:18 AM

Not saying it will or won't happen, but many defunct parks don't "become" anything. Just like many old factories, stores, etc. that have gone out of business. The buildings are empty and the land just sits there unused.

A good example of this would be Whalom Park in Lunenburg, MA. It sit along a busy strech of Route 13. This is a route I have have travel 3-4 times a year for the past 10-12 years and have slowly witnessed the overgrowth reclaiming the park.

Last edited by Hopman, Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:20 AM

Coaster Junkie from NH
I drive in & out of Boston, so I ride coasters to relax!

+0
Friday, March 6, 2009 3:14 PM

I would think that SFGAM, SFOG, SFOT, and SFMM would all be fine. I'm sure CF would jump at the opportunity to buy any of those parks (even though times are bad right now). Some of the smaller parks would probably get bought by smaller companies, such as the company that bought Frontier City, Wild Waves, and Darien Lake.

Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom might have a shot if whoever were to buy them knew what they were doing.

+0
Friday, March 6, 2009 3:52 PM

^Placing SFMM with those other three is just dead wrong, remember this park almost closed last year due to near insolvency. Also how many times does it have to be said that CF is barely keeping its head above water due to the Paramount Parks? They aren't buying anything else for a long time.

+0
Sunday, March 8, 2009 6:59 PM

Placing SFMM in there is not just dead wrong, it is actually dead right. When Shapiro added it to the parks in my humble opinion it was just to drumm up some interest in the sale as the others mentioned very rather smal, second class parks.

The land that SFMM is valuable, but the city has already stated that it would not agree on zoning changes nor would any enviromental studies come out favorable

In addition, it was always stated that the park was profitable. With SF pouring in 10 million last year, another so this year and from what was stated a new coaster for 2010 is is obvious the park is doing well and would not going anywere for a long time to come


Love living in L.A.
If you are coming to L.A., check my Website for stuff to do around here! (in my profile!)

+0
Sunday, March 8, 2009 8:05 PM
DantheCoasterman's avatar

Weren't the former owners of SFKK interested in buying the park back recently? I remember reading something about it, but apparently the offer wasn't enough to interest SFI.

I think the park will stay afloat; it has lots of potential and a prime location. Its only downside is the lack of room to expand...but that hasn't stopped them yet. (Of course, they aren't adding anything new this year...but you get my point, right? ;))


-Daniel

+0
Sunday, March 8, 2009 8:49 PM

Hopman said:

Next to NOBODY has a clue about CP out here (aside from what they've seen on Travel Channel).

Really? Maybe that is the case for you, but I have always been surprised over the amount of people that I know who have been to CP. I live half about 45 minutes south of Boston. I remember being at CP in 2003 and meeting people from my hometown while in line for the MF. This brings up my next point that I think a lot of you are forgettting.

Parks that rely more on locals than non locals are better off in an economic crisis. Look I am no economic expert but I think it is very obvious actually. What most people do in times like these is go on smaller vacations. I've heard on the news that the local ski resorts in New England are actually doing better is business. That's b/c people would rather go on cheaper vacations than expensive ones to say Disneyworld. I just had a $1500 increase in college tuition and b/c of that might not be able to make it out to CP this summer like I want to. I guess I will take a few more trips to local parks like SFNE, and this shows how they could actually profit more from the crisis. So its the SF parks that rely more on non locals that are going to suffer the most not local ones like SFNE.


-Eric: Major Parks: SFNE(homepark), SFA,SFGADV,CP,BGE,BGA,Kennywood,and Sea World: Track record 65 different coasters ridden #1 is Millennium Force #2 is El Toro and than there are all the others

+0
Monday, March 9, 2009 6:16 AM

Okay. Maybe it's just those around here in NH.

If this is the case, Canobie might have a banner year and be able to build a new coaster.


Coaster Junkie from NH
I drive in & out of Boston, so I ride coasters to relax!

+0
Monday, March 9, 2009 9:56 AM

Hopman said:
Might CF snag SFNE & return it to it's origonal Riverside Park name?

Next to NOBODY has a clue about CP out here (aside from what they've seen on Travel Channel).

The only downside with SFNE is it's location. It's about two hours from Boston, but about an hour from Hartford.

Cedar Fair cares about as much about a park's history (besides Cedar Point) as Six Flags.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...