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***
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***
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***
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***
Such contracts are normally for a very limited time. Eventually PKI will be able to get a B&M if they want one.
*** Edited 7/17/2006 7:52:08 PM UTC by Isca***