Nothing Enchanted about it

Seems like we have the first indications of which parks Cedar Flags is going to jettison. Missouri is in the cross hairs.

“Trademark applications for Enchanted Parks”

St. Louis surprises me a bit. That seems like it should be higher up on the food chain, but maybe the market there just isn't strong.

As we discussed previously, they have to sell a lot, and that means some things you wouldn’t expect.

I can not believe this list is complete, so gird your loins.

Genuine question: Why would Six Flags trademark a brand for properties they plan to sell?

That was my question too. It seems weird to assume they would trademark a new name for the parks they intend to sell. Taking into account that they previously said they were going to sell off some parks, this news doesn't make sense. Maybe they have a new strategy? Maybe a new name for the parks whose reputation as a Six Flags brand is tainted? Maybe they are going to try to sell the trademarked parks as a chain of parks without familiarizing the public to the new chain first?

I don't get it.

Sounds more like a rebrand to me. Six Flags isn't a name particularly associated with quality.

If looking to sell parks and reduce debt in a meaningful way, Six Flags won't be able to just sell the dogs of the chain. Will need to sell parks that do well too (but not expecting any crown jewels to be sold).

Per the PTO, Enchanted Parks Holdings, LLC (which lists an Orlando, Florida address) filed for the trademarks. Innovative Attraction Management bought a water park/resort in NY including one called Enchanted Forest Water Safari in March 2024. Appears IAM has an office in Orlando. Are the two related? Not clear. But if they are, would seem intent is to keep the parks open (unless they are buying them to sell them).

https://www.watersafari.com...quisition/

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/docu...x=0&page=1

TylerWS:

Genuine question: Why would Six Flags trademark a brand for properties they plan to sell?

It doesn’t seem like Six Flags is registering the trademark; the article traces it back to an entity in Orlando.

Two sorta random thoughts:

1) It seems non-ideal to have an economy/industry/business where the sole focus is growth, as opposed to steady returns. I know that’s the world today, but it doesn’t seem like it should be the only version of capitalism possible (let alone other economic systems).

2) There’s a lot of weirdness in the list. The waterpark in KC but not Worlds of Fun? Michigan’s Adventure but not, say, the OKC park? In St Louis the land might be worth more than the park, but that ain’t true in Muskegon. There’s something I’m not seeing.

And a bonus:

3) “Enchanted Parks” is a name that would make me keep driving ugh.

YMMV of course.

This is the best-case scenario IMO—having these parks sold to and combined into another chain. I’d much rather see that happen than have them all turned into real estate developments that go nowhere, leaving the land sitting vacant for years.

When I see something like “Enchanted Parks Michigan’s Adventure” I think to myself someone sure was not paying attention in marketing/PR class. That name and others is a mouthful.

I’ve also been a believer that the Six Flags brand name is beyond repair from decades now of poor management. Let parks be known as Great Adventure, Fiesta Texas, Magic Mountain, etc. as a break from the past to chart a new path forward. The only two that really have a legacy for locals with the Six Flags branding are Over Texas/Georgia, otherwise the name hurts more than it helps at this point.

Jeff:

Sounds more like a rebrand to me. Six Flags isn't a name particularly associated with quality.

Why would the applications be registered to an LLC that was registered in December and located in Orlando then?

I still don't understand what selling a few parks accomplishes and why everyone thinks it's inevitable. Yes, they mention it enough that it sounds like they're entertaining it. But even if they pulled in $500 million for a handful of mid-level parks, and "if" is doing a lot of work in that statement, they still have $4.5 billion in debt. I won't be surprised if we're sitting here a year from now with Six Flags looking the same as it does right now.

Some of these parks should have been closed anyway, regardless of the debt problem.

For the longest time I wondered why Six Flags and Cedar Fair were holding on to these dogs, and it finally dawned on me; Neither could afford to downsize assets or revenues or they would have had less leverage in an inevitable M/A they were both anticipating. Of course, this doesn't equate to profitability, and we are seeing the correction now that the merger is in the rear view mirror.

I would strongly assume that these "dogs" are still fairly profitable.

Gunkey Monkey:

When I see something like “Enchanted Parks Michigan’s Adventure” I think to myself someone sure was not paying attention in marketing/PR class. That name and others is a mouthful.

I assume if the name of the park changes to that, guests would still just call it "Michigan’s Adventure." Enchanted Parks just is the brand that replaces the little Six Flags part of the logo.

I'm not saying that Enchanted Parks is catchy or anything. It's kind of a sucky name. Too many syllables.

For all we know, this could be a twenty-year-old kid with a little bit of inheritance who is playing around with the idea of buying the parks or something.

I wonder. Could this be branding for parks with a water park attached versus water parks that are a separate gate? MI Adventure definitely meets that criteria as does St. Louis.

It seems like this Innovative Attractions Management company is either buying the parks, or perhaps a REIT such as EPR is buying the parks and giving IAM the contract to operate them. Before the news broke yesterday, www.enchantedparks.com redirected to www.i-amllc.com (Innovative Attractions Management): https://web.archive.org/web...parks.com/

Fun:

For the longest time I wondered why Six Flags and Cedar Fair were holding on to these dogs

If they were actually losing money, I think they would have been jettisoned a long time ago.

I actually don't understand why they'd want to get rid of parks like Michigan's Adventure and Great Escape - parks that they've given minimal investment to over the years, and supposedly still contribute positively to the bottom line and do so with margins above some of the big boys, albeit, at a much smaller scale. It isn't operating these parks that has landed them in too much debt. I believe both of these parks in particular, had long time managers that were tied into the original ownership families of the park (Camille Jourden-Mark in Michigan was daughter of founder Roger Jourden and Rebecca Wood at Great Escape who was somehow related to founder Charley Wood) and knew how to run them, probably needing minimal help/support from corporate. But I guess since they showed both of those people the door last year, now these little parks are just extra clutter on the budget spreadsheets in Charlotte.

All these companies want to grow grow grow and they say having more parks reduces their risk, diversifies them across markets etc, but then they end up not being able to properly manage the entity as one and they end up telling us the exact oppisite story when they shrink right back down. I suppose it's good for the lawyers and banksters that structure the deals along the way and maybe the executives that take bonuses, but it sucks for a lot of other people involved along the way.

Hopefully unloading these parks is a game changer for Six Flags, but I don't really see it moving the needle on the debt meaningfully.

bigboy:

I would strongly assume that these "dogs" are still fairly profitable.

That was kinda my point about an economy, etc, solely focused on growth. I would guess these are perfectly sound businesses, turning a profit.

Granted, I think we all agree SF has to do something, and I guess this is it.

bigboy:
But even if they pulled in $500 million for a handful of mid-level parks, and "if" is doing a lot of work in that statement, they still have $4.5 billion in debt.

Well, that’s 10%+ of their debt, and 10%+ less interest expense, which frees up more cash to pay more debt, and gets the snowball rolling downhill. You gotta start somewhere.

Gunkey Monkey:

The only two that really have a legacy for locals with the Six Flags branding are Over Texas/Georgia, otherwise the name hurts more than it helps at this point.

New England is my local Six Flags and I'm positive they could go right back to Riverside and it wouldn't bother anybody. There are still those who call it that anyway. And you're right - Six Flags has very little positive association at this point. Yeah, it's a widely recognized brand but so is Monsanto.