More SOB speculation

Monday, July 17, 2006 3:12 PM
This was in the Cincinnati Enquirer today

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060717/NEWS01/607170344

First off I like the ACE members idea of what to do wit SOB. But what's interesting is the idea that Paramount couldn't put a B+M in PKI because of other park contracts.

You have to copy and paste the whole link *** Edited 7/17/2006 7:14:23 PM UTC by Coastertigger13***

+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:14 PM
I can't get the link to work, even with a copy paste
+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:18 PM
Just click "local news" on the toolbar - it should get you there.
+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:20 PM
http://tinyurl.com/rdpem ;)

edit: I have heard from a few sources that the "no compete clause" in question is with SFKK. Which kinda stinks, 'cause I plain don't like Chang! LOL...

*** Edited 7/17/2006 7:23:20 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:26 PM
I've always wondered why there wasn't a B&M at PKI.
+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:27 PM
that non-compete clause has got to be BS, how would, at the time, Six Flags Ohio, had been able to put in Batman Knight Flight considering the property is closer to Cedar Point than Kings Island?

edit: forgot about Chang, but how long could a non-compete clause be valid? *** Edited 7/17/2006 7:29:30 PM UTC by coaster kevin***

+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:32 PM
http://www.coasterbuzz.com/2006-198-567220.htm
+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:35 PM
Well, I am pretty sure what this topic is gonna' turn into. More of the same "taer it down" hogwash. I only hope the industry experts are correct in their assumptions. And, yes, IMHO PKI needs a new "world class" coaster but it should not come at the expense of one of it's 2 signature coasters.
+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:45 PM
^^^ Not all parks are willing to fork over the extra cash to purchase the "non-compete clause".

If it were MY park, and I had a Beemer INVERT, then I might see *perceived value*, (maybe even more than perceived, LOL), in preventing another NEARBY park from building....a B&M invert. I would NOT spend extra to prevent a park from building *any* Beemer nearby, because a floorless, IMO, is just not the same as an invert and doesn't run the trisk of creating unneccessary competition (and floorlesses just ain't that good anyway, hehe).

B.S.? Nope, just plain business. ANYTHING legal, you can put in a contract. Even a contact with Walter and Claude... ;)

edited for posts inserted before I submitted... :)

*** Edited 7/17/2006 7:52:20 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:49 PM
No compete clauses are not uncommon. I am aware of two such clauses involving KW. One was a one-year deal from Intamen that ensured that no other park would get a taller Intamen drop tower during the season when Pitt Fall opened. The other was an exclusive purchase of two large S&S Screamin' Swings for parks in the northeast. As a result of this later deal KW and LC got swings but other parks in the region such as SFNE, SFGAdv, and HP were excluded (the two smaller swings at DP and Moreys remained in place). This agreement lasts through the 2007 season.

Such contracts are normally for a very limited time. Eventually PKI will be able to get a B&M if they want one.

+0
Monday, July 17, 2006 3:50 PM
Fine. Let them build an Expedition Geforce "Clone" that follows the very hilly and rugged terrain back along and below the ridgeline behind the vortex/racer/beast. Put the station just about wherever you want... With an out and back track design, the footprint doesn't have to be that big, and you can snake it through just about any part of the park you want to.

:)

-Chris

*** Edited 7/17/2006 7:52:08 PM UTC by Isca***

+0

Closed topic.

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