O.K. now the B.S. starts to show up. GL's closing.

---

Gemini said:
Semi-lame? Is that your honest opinion, or is it being skewed by your opinion on the closing?

---

To be honest, it's probably a combination of both. I'm still not quite done with my Kinzel-bashing; give it another two weeks. I'm not generally into waterparks either, though I've seen many while visiting the amusement side of combo parks. In fact, the one I've actually been to the most -- as in actually swimming in -- is WWK.

Don't get me wrong; WWK is a mediocre medium. It's probably better than CF's waterpark at Dorney. Probably better than Soak City, as well. But no way can it compare to Boomerang Bay at KI. I was amazed at the number of attractions there this summer.

Even if WWK was better than Boomerang Bay, it still isn't anywhere close to what it should be for a stand-alone waterpark. Not if CF wants to bring in more than 50,000 people.

Interesting thread, as I think the last time I posted here was when I talked about how disappointing Cedar Fair's management of this property has been, and there were a lot of people who came back and said that it was all part of the great Cedar Fair plan to do this all along.

As a shareholder, I'm saddened to see that I was correct.

Now, to address a few of the things that other people mentioned on these boards in regards to the closure:

Should Cedar Fair have announced the closing of the park? As a shareholder, I wish they would have. It's simple -- if people knew that these last few weeks were the last time they would get to go there, the park could have... no, would have drawn a ton more people for the end. Then, once the people are in the park, you can use that opportunity to potentially sell them on the water park and how great it is for next year. This allows people to visit a park that has memories for them for ages one last time, and allows the park to reap a last push of profit.

I'm certain that Cedar Fair was worried about people complaining that the park was closing, and that is the *only* reason that the announcement wasn't made sooner. If the rest of the chain had done gangbusters, but the ride side of GL was losing money and they wanted to get rid of it, I think this still would have occurred.

As for employees trashing things on their way out, that is a crazy idea. What you do is you promise full time employees that work until the end a bonus for making it based on the increased attendance you expect to get, and that way the people who have worked at the park full time for the last five or more years and feel an attachment to it also get to say goodbye to it. I have never worked in any job in any industry where employees hear that a place that they put a lot of effort into is closing who then tried destroying it themselves. They would have had too much pride, and it is too sad to do that. From what I know, it isn't like the amusement park industry pays people a ton to be there, so the ones working in it tend to be people who love the industry, and would want to be there to say goodbye.

As a reminder, look at what 'happened' to Astroworld when it closed. It was almost a festive atmosphere, even though there was a definite disappointment that it was closing. Now, even the full time people that worked there will feel anger because they never got to truly say goodbye to the place that they worked at and loved for years.

About the Kinzel stock thing -- what I saw and see that as isn't an attempt for him to capitalize on the closure. In industry, when you are making cost cutting measures, your stock price does raise... but not when the cost cutting measure is a direct result of a miscalculation over the value of a property which was supposed to be a long term money gainer. To me, it would be like McDonald's announcing that it was closing all of its European stores and having shareholders expecting the price to rise because they were saving money on labor. It doesn't work that way. Kinzel bought those shares to say that he still believes in the long-term profitability of the chain at a time that analysts and investors will definitely be questioning it.

What does this mean for Cedar Fair -- only that now is really the time to start watching what happens at all their ex-Paramount Parks. To me, this just raises huge questions about management calculations, as well as how hastily decisions are made. If it truly wasn't decided until after the park closed if the rides side was closing for good, the management is completely inept, as they wasted a perfect opportunity to make some last minute money on the property, as well as spin the press to be working for the change, instead of against it as it most definitely is now.

Isn't this the same "market" where...at the last Browns game before the move to Baltimore...the fans were walking out of the stadium with bleachers, bricks and anything they could get their hands on?

I'm just saying...

Great post... and nice to hear from a stockholder with a different perspective.

WS: That's a bit different. Sports fans losing the arena--or team--to which they connect pivotal, life-changing decisions (at least in their POV) is a LOT different than an amusement park closing.

If theme parks engendered that grade of fanaticism, they could charge thousands for season passes and get it. Works for sports teams all over America. Not for the local amusement park.

Think about it: Who tailgates outside GL every Sunday, dressed from head to toe in park gear and paints their face like the mascot? Or anywhere else? CP? A Disney park? Anyone? Where's the theme park section in my local paper? The columnists? The radio station on my AM dial?

When a park has that sort of following, they can worry about people ripping timbers off their coasters. But then again, parks that did would stay open...

-CO

I would say ACE members could be just as fanatical as sports fans. You might note in my "favorite memoreis" of GL post I did NOT note any of the ACE days.

^ I'm pretty sure drunk and rowdy Browns fans are completely different than amusement park fans. Besides, the leaving of the Browns was pretty hostile. I've never seen an amusement park's last day be hostile.

I have a question about SFAW. I'm guessing it was a year-round park right? Meaning it didn't rely on seasonal teenage employees to operate the park, but rather adults (most likely (early-)retirees) to staff rides and shops?
Could it be the thought that teenagers are a bit less responsible than adults is why they waited to announce the closure? I know people keep trying to compare the two, but are they really the same kind of staff?

---

Ensign Smith said:
Even if WWK was better than Boomerang Bay, it still isn't anywhere close to what it should be for a stand-alone waterpark. Not if CF wants to bring in more than 50,000 people.

---

Its way nicer than Sandcastle in Pittsburgh and IMO nicer than Boomerang Bay. BB has more stuff to do, but its ugly.

^^No,SFAW was a seasonal operation.

I was browsing around on the GLT forums a couple hours ago to see what's going on & apparently demolition/removal has begun.They're currently underway in the process of dismantling thunderhawk & dominator's trains are ready to be shipped out but no dismantling of that ride has begun yet.

My guess is that they're removing TH first so that they can then get started on removing dominator's drop & loop.Someone posted a few pics over on GLT showing the current stage of the demolition/ride removals earlier today.

---

CoastaPlaya said:

Think about it: Who tailgates outside GL every Sunday, dressed from head to toe in park gear and paints their face like the mascot?

---

Talk about a great idea..

This weekend, beer and burgers in Kennywood's parking lot! I'm bringin' Kenny Kangaroo masks, Garfield orange paint and Odie ears!! Who's with me???

Ok, I kid... I kid...

But, the general idea of that kind of put a cartoon-like picture in my head of a bunch of people in fanny packs painting their faces moly orange in the soak city parking lot and made me chuckle quite a bit. :)

-Josh

---

Rob Ascough said:
Great post... and nice to hear from a stockholder with a different perspective.

---

It was a good post, but it's still largely emotional.

I can in the same breath curse them for failure, but praise them for finally having the nuts to get that albatross off their neck. I've got a lot more cash than I sometimes realize wrapped up in that company, and I don't want my distribution to slip. (Funny how small, monthly contributions add up.)

And mark my words... that Paramount Parks debt everyone worries about... gone by 2012.

---

Jeff said:

---

I can in the same breath curse them for failure, but praise them for finally having the nuts to get that albatross off their neck.

---

Cut and run?

LOL, might also be called "cutting their losses". My guess is the stock price will eventually show that investors view this as a good decision....for Cedar Fair.

And now, on to starting "the other GL thread". ;)
*** Edited 9/27/2007 6:11:14 AM UTC by rollergator***

---

I wasn't sure which post-GL thread to put this in, but I guess it doesn't matter. If you want a real interesting read right now, go back through the "Two More Out the Door" thread that Intamin Fan started.

Funny what the response was to those who said it looked like they'd be closing the rides side of the park, and those who said it. Go read what was said 2 weeks ago by those now saying the closure is a wonderful idea and the only sound business decision to make. Talk about a Head Spin!

I think it probably should have been closed and I'm still upset about it. It's ok to feel both, no?

---

Jeff said:
It was a good post, but it's still largely emotional.

---

Agreed... but it proves a good point. Not all stockholders are interested in money alone- many stockholders invest in a company because it's something they care about. A friend of mine has made quite a bit of money in the market by investing in good companies that he also happens to support out of personal interest. That post merely offers the perspective of another shareholder- a perspective that is likely shared by other people.

Rob, you need to let go of that. Investing is not an emotional process. You don't invest in something because it gives you warm fuzzies, you invest to make money.

Why can't you accept the fact that the way things work in your little Jeff Putz microcosm don't necessarily reflect the way things work everywhere? You're under this misguided impression that because you haven't witnessed certain things, they don't exist. I know for a fact that there are many investors that chose to invest in companies representing the things they enjoy. It has nothing to do with not wanting to make money.

My father has been investing in things of personal interest to him for years and it's worked out very well for him. Ditto for the friend of mine I mentioned earlier. What should I tell them? They didn't make the right decision by investing in things they enjoy as they bury me under piles of money they made?

You take everything personally. I'm not going to respond to that.

You always have an exception to everything. That doesn't make it a trend. People who invest in the stock market for emotional reasons are doing it wrong. How many portfolio managers are thinking, "Wow, I like that company's logo, looks like a winner to me. And they like puppies too." If your dad made out, good for him. It's not the way to invest. If it was, we'd all own Six Flags stock.

Typical. When someone makes a good point, you don't respond. I like your style.

One of the truths in this world is that there are exceptions to everything. Just because your eyes aren't open wide enough doesn't mean your limited view represents everything there is to see. As far as that not being a way to invest, go tell that to my father or a lot of other people that have actually made enough in the market to retire. I'm sure they're really interested to hear you tell them why they're wrong and you're right.