Red Zone's Consent Solicitation is Successful

Help Six Flags out? Help them out by getting rid of Burke and Co. Then maybe people will stop 'bashing' Six Flags, because all of 'em won't suck.

^ They will suck even more, we'll just be blaming a different person.

IMO, Snyder is evil, pure evil. He sounds like someone that will greatly increase the amount of in-park advertisements, and that will detract from the atmosphere.

---

SFGAm Shock Wave said:
He sounds like someone that will greatly increase the amount of in-park advertisements...

---

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.

Perhaps. But the way I look at it is this, either Snyder will do something better for the company, and they'll improve.

Or, Snyder will go along with what Burke did, and we'll have what we have now. I'm all for change, if there is a possibility it could get better. Over Optimistic? Perhaps. But if he fails and the parks don't get better, more money from advertising can't keep coming if people still aren't getting in the park to see the advertising, and then perhaps someone better will come along.

Anyone that can not see Mr. Six has made a huge impact in our pop culture increasing awareness of SF's can't be that up on things. I don't see him as the great hope, just maybe another way to delayed the real problem recovery, over investment and operations.

Still it's worth a shot & we'll see what happens,I'm all for Burke's removal & replacement in the hopes that Snyder can fix the mess Burke made of SF.

Majortom:you say CF is looking into aqquiring some parks? pray tell can you at least hint at which properties they've got their eyes on for possible aqqusition?

Snyder isn't going to go in and add a bunch of stuff to SFA, even if he is a DC boy. I'm sure you'll change your tune in a year or two when he doesn't add a bunch of coasters to SFA.

The only thing I see that I don't like about Snyder is Ditching Mr. Six & him thinking that ads are the answer to more cash. But we haven't seen what he wants to do to turn the parks around.

I actually said no but they sent me the form anyway.

I am saying no to the vote anyway just to make sure. There is also voting for his proposals .

I only have 8 shares though so not much .

Everything I've seen or read about Snyder and Red Zone indicates their directorship (is that a word?) is totally about profits and stock prices. Anything to do with actually running and managing amusement/theme parks is purely incidental. Anything to do with guest services and customer satisfaction probably has never entered their minds.

I'd be willing to bet that their line of thinking is that all these rollercoasters and other rides are what got Six Flags into this financial mess in the first place, so they need to forget about that stuff and look at other ways to make money.

I get the feeling before we see more coasters in any SF park, we'll be seeing sports bars tailored to the home teams of each park location and things like ESPN Zones. Bring on that sports merchandising!

As far as in-park advertising goes, we could always hope that Waste Management is one of them. ;)

This doesn't surprise me. Six Flags has been scared of Dan Snyder from the beginning. They've been extremely defensive. From day one they wouldn't meet with him and when he started to take control of the company Six Flags began sound desperate. Some letters to stockholders sounded very demanding that stockholders not elect Snyder to the board. Everything we've read so far is what Six Flags wants us to hear. I haven't heard one thing anywhere about what Red Zone's plans are from Red Zone. If you ask me, do you really want Six Flags management leading a auction of the company after they sold Geauga Lake at a cheap price to CF. Not to mention the money Burke and Co will walk away with after they sell the company.

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.

I don't know how the arrangement is for Fed Ex Field where the redskins play, but I can tell you that M & T Bank Stadium here in Baltimore where the Raven's play is owened and operated by the Maryland Stadium Authority. The concessions, cleaning, parking, etc, is all operated by them. I'm sure for their part in having naming rights, M & T Bank pays for and has a say in some of this day to day operations, but the only thing the Raven's have to do with any of it is play their games there and the team owners collect the fees for the naming rights. I would be willing to bet Fed Ex Field has a similar arrangement, so where everyone is giving Snyder credit for running that stadium, I say he probably dosen't deserve the credit.

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.

Been reading several different articles and threads on the SF situation.... not sure I am understanding all of it (or is that I haven't been paying THAT close of attention).

SFNO's future is up in the air after the flooding

SFAstroWorld is done

Now with shake up in the company, there is talk about some of the bigger parks beign bought up but some of the smaller ones being turned into parking lots etc ("I can see maybe the water park being kept in some fashion, but the truth is the land around SFA has become very valuable.")

Bottom line... wether you like Six Flags or not, you have to admit that the chain does represent a whole lot of parks and coasters. A few years ago everyone was talking about a "coaster rennasiance". Now with Six Flag's questionable future and with the closing like places such as Liberty Land... are we heading for a "Coaster / Park Dark Age?" *** Edited 11/23/2005 3:26:33 PM UTC by SLFAKE***

It's definitely not a Dark Age. I think this is just the industry's version of the Internet bubble burst. Six Flags underwent rapid expansion without a solid financial base. Now it's just contracting a little, and it may have to contract a little more before they get back to a solid financial footing.

Just keep in mind that things go in cycles. There were over 2,000 coasters operating in the U.S. in the 1920s. And that was trimmed to a few hundred by the 1940s. And parks like Riverview in Chicago, what was likely the Cedar Point of its time, closed without warning only five years before The Racer at PKI started up the coaster "renaissance."

What I don't understand it why I have received three of the revocation forms (the blue cards) from Six Flags, but I never did receive the white consent card. I hope MajorTom is right and that enough revocation cards are received to bring the percentage down to less that 50%.

I do think it was premature of Snyder's group to issue a press release now, since stockholders have until December 24 to decide.

Hmm, if they are announcing victory it's because they have 57% of the TOTAL amount of outstanding Six Flags stock accounted for - not just 57% of those who bothered to vote. In which case, it really wouldnt matter what votes are cast at the last minute.

Something like 7 people own a good 80% of the stock, if Synder has more than half of these guys on board with him already then its a done deal.

It’s good to see others opinions.<br>

Over the years, however, I’ve read so many opinions complain about Six Flags. Now there’s the potential for change and complaints continue, because of who finally took some action to make changes. At least someone took action; that’s how change is made.<br>

So you don’t want the old Six Flags, but you don’t want a potentially new Six Flags either. You want roller coasters, but not over parking lots. If Six Flags constantly catered to these opinions, they wouldn’t be in business anyway. It’s difficult to satisfy this type of mentality.<br>

At this point isn’t any change potentially positive? Unless you’re psychic, you have no idea what the future will be. Potential proposals for improvement are still just proposals. It takes time for anyone new or old to understand changes in the industry and what works and what doesn’t. There are few certainties. Taking a chance is still a part of this business.<br>

For those who feel Mr. Snyder’s intentions are focused on profit and stockholder value, that’s business. That’s why businesses exist. However, someone stated that the success of FedEx field operations probably isn’t credited to the owners. Who else chose the operations company (if that’s the case)? FedEx Field isn’t without problems, I’m sure, but they are successful year after year. Six Flags has not been successful for years. This year Six Flags showed positive signs, but it simply may be too late.<br>

If they want business and park growth (i.e. profit, stockholder value, in-park services, and roller coasters on occasion) then they will, repeat will, focus on and satisfy guests. Guests have the money, but first must be seen as people, customers, and guests. Many other amusement parks have been and are successfully doing this (i.e. Holiday World should be one business model for the industry).<br>

Atmospheres at the parks are what they are. Further advertisements probably won’t hinder your day anymore than your current dissatisfaction. Paramount’s Kings Island’s Top Gun has an extreme billboard advertisement. It’s large, it’s out of place, and it’s odd. You still ride it. I recently read about audio advertisements being played on its’ lift hill and brake run.<br>

Unpleasant advertising isn’t anything new at theme parks. It’s everywhere and unfortunately probably won’t go away. You can’t Tivo a theme park, but one day you can pay extra for special sunglasses that will make all in-park advertisements disappear.<br>

The only opinions that will change anything at this point are those of stockholders. Your opinion can still affect the company. If you enjoy Six Flags, go and bring family and friends. Encourage others around you to go. If you have a positive or negative experience, tell Guest Services and write to the visited park and corporate office. If you do not enjoy Six Flags, do not go and stick to your guns.<br>

(I have no relationship with Six Flags and I’m not a stockholder. I’m not promoting which way the company should go, but have some hope; think positive. Enjoy the possibilities. It is an amusement park.) <br>

Thank you for your time. *** Edited 11/23/2005 6:28:01 PM UTC by kfconcepts***

---

Rescue131 said:
I don't know how the arrangement is for Fed Ex Field where the redskins play

---

The arrangement is Dan Snyder owns and operates the stadium. He operates it as a seperate business from the Redskins. Essentially, the Redskins lease it. The concessions and security are farmed out. I'm not sure if everything else is.

The land around SFA is very valuable. As such, but the park does draw tourists, employee teenagers, and is significant cash cow for the county. I think the state and county would take a good long hard look at what use Dan Snyder has for the land at SFA before deciding to rezone it. Traffic is bad enough trying to get to Fedex Field on game days. I can't imagine Dan Snyder trying to adding more pressure by throwing a tailgate party in the parking lots of SFA. Not to mention the noise ordinances the park is under. I think a far more suitable location would be the vacant Landover Mall across the street. I don't know what his plans are for SFA, I loved to ask him, but having a real estate mogul like Dwight Sher on the Board of Directors scares me to death. Especially with new $600,000 homes being cramped together like sardines just up the street at Central Ave. and 301.

---

Fierce Pancake said:
Hmm, if they are announcing victory it's because they have 57% of the TOTAL amount of outstanding Six Flags stock accounted for - not just 57% of those who bothered to vote. In which case, it really wouldnt matter what votes are cast at the last minute.

---

They may have 57% now, but the problem is those who may have consented have the opportunity between now and December 24 to revoke that consent. It's not a vote.

Why would anyone do that though?

Because they learned more information that they didn't like? Or, perhaps his press release saying "I won" a month early is a bit pretentious?

People's opinions can change. Just because they gave consent at one point in time doesn't mean it necessarily will stay that way forever.