Mall management to take over Camp Snoopy

The article states: "Cedar Fair's management policies restricted what improvements the mall could make". Does anyone know the details of the contract between the MoA and CF? Since CF only ran the park, couldn't the mall just add anything they wanted? I wonder if CF had more control than what I first thought.

Why would anyone want to "balance" by losing a contract? I believe CF had no part in this, they were told their contract wouldn't be renewed. Again, I gotta ask, why would you "balance" by reducing the number of money-making properties you have?

The two have never got along, remember when they took out Golf Mountain CF wanted to put in an Arrow inverted mouse on that needed to be extended into that property, instead we got a General Foods Comercial you have to pay to see. This also allows CF to finally put in Snoopy characters at VF with out worrying about hurting their intrest in CS.

Sounds like an ego thing to me. I for one would never question the capital expenditure policy of the company, because their track record is mostly excellent.

At first I thought I was a stupid idea. What would KCS-MOA gain? VF and KCS have been co-marketed in promotional materials for years (which saves money) and how can you possibly compete with an outdoor park?

But then I thought about it some more...and think it's a good thing CF's been replaced with Triple Five. Triple Five's managed Galaxyland and World Water Park for the West Edmonton Mall, so they aren't exactly new to this.

Restrictions on mall improvements? What could that be? Sniff, sniff...I smell S&S DoubleShot. Of course CF wouldn't go for one with PT twenty minutes away. I've always said one of those would be great in the mall. Hope they build at least a pair of 'em. They'd only need to run at factory specs to give VF's taller-but-wussed-down Space Shot leg a run for its money.

Is KCS limited for space? Maybe...for now. There's always Phase II. Dare I dream of a local indoor waterpark?

Competition is always, always good.

-CO
*** This post was edited by CoastaPlaya 1/10/2005 1:55:55 PM ***

Indoor waterpark? This is being constructed across the street from MOA? http://www.waterparkofamerica.com/
*** This post was edited by Timo 1/10/2005 2:17:35 PM ***

No, that will be north to both phases of the mall. Guessing from the size of the hotel and local articles about it months ago, I'm guessing it will be limited to guests with accomodations. Sister property Gran Rios will admit guests for $10-20 based on availability...but they're not in a locale as densely populated as Bloomington.

The Double Shot is nothing more than a hunch.

What I was saying about a MOA Phase II waterpark had nothing to do with reality...therefore the preface 'dare I dream?' Triple Five manages West Edmonton Mall's waterpark, so why not? I have no clue what plans crossed MOA's table.

-'Playa

So will Camp Snoopy be able to continue with that name and the other Peanut's characters or was that strictly a CF thing?

I have no clue.

Guessing again: There's probably some sort of licensing deal that will keep them @ KCS-MOA.

There were persistent rumors and rumblings that VF proposed opening a CS for '03. If true, I doubt that it made for friendly relations.

My guess is that Triple 5 proposed more thrill rides and Management preferred it to CF's 'make it complement VF' ideas. I just hope the park stays pretty.

-'Playa*** This post was edited by CoastaPlaya 1/10/2005 10:24:33 PM ***

I not sure if they will keep there Camp Snoopy name or not. If you look up the name in the Trademark database, it says that UFS Owns the Trademark Camp Snoopy.

United Features Syndicate always has. That's got nothing to do with it.

Don't forget the discussion for last week's article when it was announced that CF lost the contract.. there was discussion as to an exclusive use contract for Knott's/CF.

So UFS may own the license, but if Knott's/CF have an exclusive use contract, then there may be problems. Don't forget that Mr. Kinzel did mention that the change was not supposed to significantly affect CF financially. I'm thinking license fees instead of management fees. Good for CF because they still get money, and good for MoA because they now get to build whatever they want.

Lotsa back and forth there, but nobody figured anything out there either.

BTW, never mind what I wrote in my last post about Triple 5 proposing thrill rides and whatnot. Actually, Simon properties and Triple 5 (the Ghermezian brothers) butted heads back in '03 over Mall management and ownership and Triple 5 won.

So these changes may have been long in the making, pending expiration of CF's contract.

-'Playa
*** This post was edited by CoastaPlaya 1/11/2005 10:22:32 AM ***

Actually, there was a lot of ignoring of quotes from Knott's, etc.

You seem to ignore a lot of things that support whatever side you don't agree with. Including the fact that I said there was discussion.. not that there was a conclusion or consensus reached. I also said "...if Knott's/CF have an exclusive use contract..." Note the word if.

And now a word from our good friend the dictionary...

if [Middle English, from Old English gif. See i- in Indo-European Roots.] A possibility, condition, or stipulation: There will be no ifs, ands, or buts in this matter.

The only thing I said was nobody knows anything.

Now should you have an absolute matter of fact on the issue, speak up! I'm sure we'd be glad to hear it.

But otherwise, untwist your panties, siddown, shaddap and press your nose and lips against the glass outside their management offices--like the rest of us.

-CO

one of the big reasons that MOA is leting the contract expire is so that they don't have to pay another company to run something that they know how to run. therefore they will get more of the profit from the park by cutting out the middle man. makes business sense to me.