Posted
Dan Snyder's Red Zone says that 57% of Six Flags stockholders agree to a board shake up that would replace three board members, including CEO and chair Kieran Burke. Six Flags will use an independent firm to verify the results before any action is taken.
Read the press release from Red Zone and the response from Six Flags.
It's funny how once Snyder and Red Zone LLC stepped up to the plate, the current board finally (albeit too late) tries to make drastic/immediate changes to its park operations. Even if Snyder loses his bid to take over the board, he would have at least done the rest of us a favor and scared Burke and his henchmen into shaping up and realize their jobs can be at stake for running the company so poorly.
He seems like he would put way too many advertisements in the park...
That's sort of what I was touching on in this week's podcast. All of the ideas we've heard so far involve bringing in advertising or sponsors or partnering up or outsourcing or whatever.
The one place you never seem to hear them want to get more money from is the customer. No talks of reasonable season passes rather than giveaways, no talks of encouraging repeat visits, no talk of actually fixing Six Flags - just a lot of talk of ways to bring additional revenue to the company from other sources.
Once Red Zone/Snyder grab the reigns, you'll see an influx of money through all the means presented, then investors will be happy, the stock will move and then in a year or three everyone will realize that nothing has changed and we'll all be back to square one.
The only hope is that whoever did bid for SF takes it over prior to Snyder getting on the board and see the potential that exists at the parks. He is absolultey the last person I want to see run the parks based on his customer hostile ideas which basically boils down to limited capital expansion and raising of price.
I go to Redskins games. The stadium is well staffed with concession vendors, the food is tasty, plenty of security, the staff knows what there jobs are, there are no long lines to get through security at the gate, the stadium and surrounding areas are clean, the bathrooms are clean and don't stink , the toilets work (I don't think I've ever seen an out of order sign or an overflowing toilet in Fedex Field) and to tell you the truth the concessions are not that badly priced, except for beer which is $7.00 for a 20 oz plastic bottle. The high priced beer probably has to do more with keeping indulging fans at bay than Dan Snyder making a profit off it. In fact, a tub of popcorn is cheaper than the movie theatres in the area.
If your hoping for a bail out from another major amusement park company, don't bet on it. The profitable parks might be bought individually but the ones that remain will probably face the wrecking ball. I don't see Blackstone or Dubai Capital snatching up a chain of amusement parks and taking on $2 bil in debt in a extremely competitive environment. One owner or another, some Six Flags parks are going to face a down sizing. The land they sit on is just to valuable. Example, doesn't Six Flags own the Six Flags Mall across from Six Flags over Texas? and isn't it still largely vacant like it was two years ago? Gee, there is some unused land that could be sold for a pretty penny and developed.
For those that think Six Flags America will make out like bandits. Think again. Dan Snyder owns at least one corporate jet (Redskins 1) and a helicopter. I think his day trips to amusement parks are to places like Orlando and Anaheim, CA.
And Coasterguts, I agree with you. SFA won't be living high off the hog under Snyder's control. I have said this all along. Snyder said a few years ago that he would like a site nearby, but away from Fed Ex Field where overflow parking and tailgating events could be held to include some sort of pavilion where a large screen could be set up to show the games. Take a look at a Metropolitan DC map and see what the proximity of SFA is to Fed Ex Field. Almost fits the bill perfectly. I can see maybe the water park being kept in some fashion, but the truth is the land around SFA has become very valuable.
Now where have I heard that before? The last presidential race perhaps... ;)
Either way we might be looking at some park closures unfortunately as no chain is gonna want to buy SF as it stands now & maybe some of the closures may benefit the company as that means less overall capital expenditures to worry about no this doesn't mean SFA will become spoiled if Snyder takes control....it may mean a more fairly balanced cap ex program for all the parks instead of what we've seen under Burke & co.'s leadership the last few seasons.
Anything seems better than Burke at this point in time but we'll have to wait & see what happens.
...why is it that time after time, people don't understand that in business you CAN'T have a balanced cap ex program? Not if you want to stay in business. The only exceptions are if the parks themselves are exactly the same size (which they are most definitely not). Bigger parks attract more visitors, and as such need more frequent additions to keep them coming back (well, that and customer service, of course).
If you owned 5 parks, and 2 brought in $10million of profit, and the other 3 brought in $1.6million every year (presumably $25million), would you continue to give each park $5million? No - the smaller 3 parks would continually run several million in the red. That's not good business.
You must be logged in to post