Jazzland running out of money, ex-bidder says Six Flags is interested

Posted Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:38 AM | Contributed by ColumbusCoaster

Entertainment Associates, the company formed to rescue Jazzland from closing, has withdrawn its bid to buy the park. According to the bankruptcy attorney for Entertainment Associates, "Jazzland has informed us that it is actively negotiating with Six Flags." Other companies are interested in Jazzland as well, including Ripley Entertainment, known for their Ripley's Believe it or Not museums. The park has enough cash to operate through this weekend.

Read more from the Times-Picayune.

Related parks

Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:50 AM
Isn't Six Flags trying to hold off on spending because they are in so much debt with their major expansions for 1999/2000/2001? I thought they would have held off on any new parks until they get their feet back on the ground when it comes to financing.
+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:21 AM
Well I would hope they would stop buying parks, dont they have enough already!
+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:31 AM

"Six Flags declined to comment on the situation."

Maybe I'm just reading a lot into it, but that could confirm what the attorney was saying. Seems to me that if SF wasn't involved at all, they would just come out and say so.

-----------------
Aaron
"I think you're blind to the fact that the hand you hold is the hand that holds you down..." - Everclear

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:39 AM
I would imagine that SF will be able to pick up Jazzland for very little investment. Just another drop in the bucket, and if it saves the park, I'm all for it. I'd rather SF own it then just have it close.

-----------------
If the shoe fits, find another one.

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:43 AM
SF owning it is preferable to having it close but I think the last thing the world needs right now is more Six Flags parks. Let's have some variety instead of another incarnation of the tired old Batman themes.

-------------
everything's better with a banjo

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:07 AM

I'm not sure the investment community is ready for them to keep spending money. PKS finally hit their pre-9/11 levels while FUN not only recovered but is riding high. As long as people are nervous about the economy I think it's in their best interest to make money instead of spend it.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:20 AM
I would be happy to hear a real company is going to buy that park,, maybe they can get the long awaited hang and bang.
+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:01 AM
Well at least Six Flags wouldn't have to do much building initially, since there's already a good selection of rides there. Let's face it, whether you like Six Flags or not, the name alone will bring people in.
-------------
The word "definitely" is definitely the most misspelled word on the buzz.
+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:02 AM
I can tell you with about 95% certainty that Six Flags will purchase this park and that Cedar Fair will not. Wanna hear why? NET INCOME. Allow me to explain...

Last year Cedar Fair made about a $1 million a week in net income (what you have after you pay the bills) spread over a full calendar year. They weren't too happy with that. They prefer net income averaging about $1.5 million a week, like they did the year before.

During that same time, Six Flags was losing a little over $1 million a week. They blame some of that on one-time events, blah blah blah, but even if you subtract that you could say they broke even for a month and lost a million a week the rest of the year.

CF wants to make net income. They want retained earnings. This would make a park tangled in costly legal brouhaha and built on swampy land that makes ride installation expensive unpalatable. Sure, they'll look it over, but that's about it.

Six Flags needs to rationalize their losses and failure to produce net income. So the park is very, very valuable to them. They can dunk in a coaster or two, report vastly increased attendance, use the purchase as a 'one-time' expense and sway traders with ADHD with the usual 'increased EBITDA' babble.

So there you have it...the next Six Flags park. Good for the locals, good for Six Flags and not really what CF was looking for anyway.

-'Play*** *** This post was edited by CoastaPlaya on 4/18/2002. ***

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:21 AM
Cedar Fair is not even in the running. It appears to be down to Six Flags and Ripley's now.
+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:44 AM
You're in my train of thought, Playa. As I see it, buying Jazzland and then dumping about $30 million dollars in rides and general improvements isn't going to break SF's bank, and with the population base in the area, I would think it would bring a return on investment much more quickly the buying, say....that Sea World park in Ohio.

With so many SF parks consitently kicking @$$ is the attendance category for the past few years, I'd say something is seriously wrong if SF doesn't start recouping their losses within the next 5 years or so. SF is a huge corporation that deals in much larger economic cycles then who's building what coaster from year to year.

-----------------
If the shoe fits, find another one. *** This post was edited by ravenguy98 on 4/18/2002. ***

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 8:26 AM
Call me nuts but I'd like to see Ripley buy this park and see what they can do with it.

-----------------
Excalibur Crew for 2002!

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:11 AM

Cedar Fair is not even in the running. It appears to be down to Six Flags and Ripley's now.


While EA brought up SF involvement, Jazzland's bankruptcy attorney cited three interested parties. Check Paragraph 10 of the article.


With so many SF parks consitently kicking @$$ is the attendance category for the past few years, I'd say something is seriously wrong if SF doesn't start recouping their losses within the next 5 years or so. SF is a huge corporation...


Enron was huge, too...and could even hide its losses on paper.

As much as I hate to say it out loud, SF has historically been a financial albatross. A coaster-building albatross, sure--but an albatross nonetheless. It collapsed under its own weight, then Warner Entertainment bought it. Then Time Warner quietly sold a controlling interest to Boston Ventures (for resale), then the cowboys from Premier kinda stumbled on it when they were bidding for management of SFOT.

Lucky thing is, SF is a recognizable name brand. The chain will never go under because there will always be somebody who thinks they can fly better than the current crash-landing albatross pilot.

- 'Playa

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:31 AM

You bring up a good point, Playa, in that if it gives them a low-cost excuse for losses, it might be good for them on paper. But I must wonder... how long can they really continue to do that?

I'll keep the FUN stock. Dividends sure are nice every three months.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:56 AM
"Enron was huge, too...and could even hide its losses on paper."

I wasn't commenting on SF's size, though, I was commenting on the fact that SF has all of the hardware together to make butt loads of money, and it just seems to me like its time for the parks to run and if they don't start recouping thier losses soon, then there is just a terminal problem with the way the whole company is being ran. I personally don't think the Enron debacle is really applicable unless we know that SF is hiding huge amounts of losses in bogus subsidiaries and and clever paper work. It's come to the fore that just about all huge comapnies can do an awful lot to hide what they don't want their investors to see, but if SF doesn't want their investors to see their losses, they definetely aren't doing a good job. If their losses in reality are much larger then we see on paper, the I suppose the Enron situation is applicable, but of course, none of us really know.

If you look at Premier's growth over the past 10 years, what they are doing now expansion wise is completely insignificant compared to past years. Obviously, they are making an effort now to run their parks instead of buying more parks, and letting the cash flow in. I really don't think that a relatively small investment such as Jazzland is going to break that trend. Like I said before, if SF isn't a cash cow within the next 5 years, something is hideously wrong.

-----------------
If the shoe fits, find another one. *** This post was edited by ravenguy98 on 4/18/2002. ***

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 11:02 AM
At least now the rumors of "maybe six Flags will buy the park" can be put to rest.

-----------------
Off with the trims!
My fellow Americans; Let's Roll!
Woodencoaster.com

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:23 PM
On with the Six Flags mission of buying every single amusement park in the world lol

-----------------
* * * * *
Remember The Future?

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:55 PM

"You bring up a good point, Playa, in that if it gives them a low-cost excuse for losses, it might be good for them on paper. But I must wonder... how long can they really continue to do that? "

I've been wondering the same thing personally... and I think things will start catching up to them sooner rather than later. I can't help but think these excuses won't fly too much longer...

JD
http://www.westcoaster.net

+0
Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:36 PM
Six Flags buy Jazzland? I say go for it. They wouldn't even need to drop 30 million in improvements after buying it. 10-12 million would get a good steel coaster from either Intamin or Vekoma (don't laugh, they can do it) and probably turn a profit with the right advertising after a few years. Seems to be their philisophy recently. I know my local park, after putting in 4 coasters in 3 years along with some other stuff, is taking a break to recoup some of the investement this year. And considering the level of ecconomics SF is dealing with, even if only 1/2 half their parks report a resonable profit, assuming the others don't lose 50 million a piece, they can probably justify the purchase of Jazzland. Feel free to disect and mutilate my hypothesis at will.

-----------------
Ready to spring into a new coaster season! *** This post was edited by Weatherman on 4/18/2002. ***

+0

You must be logged in to post

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