Tuesday, November 8, 2005 1:09 AM
4 B&Ms in US Parks in 2006?
Tatsu, Goliath, Patriot, and what else? It may be a typo but it says the parks already have B&Ms so wouldn't that leave Patriot out? Let the speculation begin.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 1:39 AM
I'm sure he meant North America, which includes La Ronde. There's little need to speculate.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 8:06 AM
Interesting article....The most interesting thing to me was that it mentioned that PKI doesn't have a B&M coaster mainly due to non-compete causes with other parks that have purchased a B&M (although I'm not sure I buy that reason anyway). I would assume that would mean that when a park buys a coaster, they insert a clause in the contract that says B&M will not build a coaster within "x" miles or some such.I had no idea such clauses existed - I wonder how stringently they're enforced.Finally, why would B&M agree to such a clause? Seems like its a fairly significant revenue limiter....
*** This post was edited by Doug Rowe 11/8/2005 8:06:41 AM ***
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 9:32 AM
When Hershey built Roller soaker they had an contract with Setpoint not to build any with in X miles for X years.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 11:06 AM
Interesting article, but it does have a few errors. Besides the above mentioned "four US coasters" statement, I also take issue with the statement that they are the sole manufacturer of B&M roller coasters. That only applies to North America-- they don't manufacturer the track for coasters overseas.
"I had no idea such clauses existed"
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 11:28 AM
B&M did the same thing with Oblivian.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 12:41 PM
They do manfacture for overseas. The coaster shown here: http://www.rcdb.com/ig3141.htm
is being manufactured at the plant. The pictures shown are pictures taken at that plant.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 12:49 PM
I can't see that is a viable reason for PKI not to have a beemer. Look around there are many parks within the general areas of each other that have a beemer. To name two Cedar Point and Geauga Lake aren't all that far, unless its like 100 miles or so cuase that would be cutting it mighty close. Plus Chang is much south of their, and i really dont know distances but it seems like a bunch of crap. But hey at least its not outsourced to another country, congrats to them, im sure they get some decent work out of it. Hope i dont jinx them.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 1:09 PM
Yeah, I don't buy that non-compete thing either. The nearest B&M is SFKK, and I just can't imagine that anyone would agree to a term that long.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 2:28 PM
And why would they have a clause solely on one coaster manufacturer? I could see it being used for the exact same type of coaster but even that is ridiculous.
That would like one town getting a Wal-Mart and putting a clause not to build another within 50 miles.
"B&M did the same thing with Oblivion."
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 3:46 PM
And SheiKra as well. Quote from an article a week before SheiKra was to open -
To ensure a competitive advantage, Bolliger & Mabillard, the Swiss manufacturer of the diving coaster, has agreed not to build any similar coasters in the United States for several years, Brown said.
BATWING FAN SFA
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 6:06 PM
That os a rather stupid thing as it would severely limit B&M's sales & besides isn't it the parks & not the manufacturer who has to worry about local competition more when the ride is actually installed?
If what they say is true based soley on B&M's own way of doing business then by that logic HP shouldn't have great bear as it's somewhat close to SFGRADV,same with Talon as well...or a better comparison would be SFA shouldn't have JJ seeing as it's a clone of FOF which PKD built first.
Now if it really worked out that way A:we would never see a new coaster in a state with more than one park & B:B&M...or any other designer/builder would run out of parks to do business with in the united states.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 7:34 PM
I'm sure that if the price is right, B&M would be willing to sign a no-compete clause with a park. Sure it limits their business, but the loss of revenue when your competition opens a B&M has got to be worth more than the consultation fees B&M charge.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 10:39 PM
Recognize: They were willing to sign a non-compete clause with BGT, which means they're willing to not build any dive coasters. Were they building others anyway? NOT likely!
Something like an invert, which has become *standard fare*, you'd have to pay HANDSOMELY to try and prevent them from building another one nearby... ;)
The real *case study* in non-compete clauses....Knott's and DCA with S&S... :)
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 11:29 PM
True Gator on the dive coaster story but comeon. PKI can't build "ANY" type of B&M coaster in that park? I find that complete bull.
Wednesday, November 9, 2005 12:15 AM
Well in the case of BGT there aren't many parks nearby likely to build a drop coaster. A doubt Sea World or IOA would have purchased one even without the non-compete.
Wednesday, November 9, 2005 4:01 AM
One thing with a 'non-compete' clause you aren't thinking about is this:
Just because SFKK, CP, and GL all have Beemers and PKI 'can't get one due to a non-compete clause' doesn't have to mean that PKI can't get any B&M coaster, it just may mean that the reason that PKI doesn't have a beemer is because one of those parks has a non-compete clause for a specific type of Beemer that PKI may have wanted, but can't get now.
PKI had a standup, why get another? (Offer not valid in Valencia, CA)
PKI has a multi looping sitdown, why get a Floorless (or Beemer Sitdown)? (Offer not Valid in Jackson, NJ)
What does that leave for Beemers they could get?
A hyper, but no Paramount Park has a Hyper. Oh, wait, PKI already has a 'hyper'.
A Dive Machine, but we all know of the BGT Clause, so perhaps they'd like to get one of those, but can't right now.
An Invert. They do have 4 'inverted' coasters at this point, perhaps only 3 after this past season, but maybe they don't want a Beemer Invert at this point.
So maybe they didn't mean that PKI can't get any B&M product because of a non-compete clause, but instead meant that PKI won't be getting a B&M product because the only ones they currently are interested in are bound by a non-compete clause.
Just a thought.
Wednesday, November 9, 2005 4:19 AM
Put in a flyer. Case closed. :)
Wednesday, November 9, 2005 9:58 AM
But do they want one? ;)
Course, the company already has 2, and 3 parks have/have had them, but no beemers yet.