SF: beginning of the end?

wow...at first the idea of SF selling Magic Mountain never would have crossed my mind....but even if it is a money maker and one of their "jewel in the crown" parks I guess if offered the right price they would sell to housing developers. Why not? That is why there is such interest in SF....people like Snyder who aren't interested in amusement parks but see it as an opportunity to liquidate and make $$ on some prime real estate.

On the other hand (for a conspiracy theory) isn't Fedex Field a few miles away from SFA?!?! Does Snyder need the land for a Redskins Hotel? Kidding.

---

BATWING FAN SFA said:
Take a look at operations at SFA for example,terrible load & dispatch times,frequent downtime for some rides & rides that are shut down indefinitely.

---

What does that have to do with Burke & CO? Ousting Burke isn't going to magically directly fix the attitude of in-park management.

---

palwine said:
at first the idea of SF selling Magic Mountain never would have crossed my mind....but even if it is a money maker and one of their "jewel in the crown" parks

---

I never have (and still don't) understand why SFMM is such a "crown jewel" for the chain. Okay, so it's highly attended in relation to the rest of the chain. It also has a much, much longer operating season and, thus, much higher operating costs. It also is home to the most downtime in the chain, as well as the most customer complaints.

Why is this park so valued??

-Nate

In a word, Nate....potential.

Palwine, Joke if you will, but I remember back when Snyder first aquired the Redskins, he talked about having an off site location where tailgating parties could be held, and there could be a pavillion of some kind where games could be shown on a large screen and in the event Maryland ever approves slots, a casino. Now tell me what large piece of property located near Fed-Ex Field is already zoned for entertainment venue? I really hope I'm wrong, But I still say that if Snyder ever takes control of SFI, you can kiss SFA and all the smaller parks goodbye.

But Snyder lives by SFA. Maybe her won't get rid of it? :) Besides, they could use Meriwether (Sp?) J/k. ;)

Merriweather has its own problems, parking being one of them. And as someone said on here somewhere, we don't know for sure Snyder is an amusement park/rollercoaster fan. If he's not, and he lives close by, don't you think he'd rather live close by an sports/entertainment/casino venue? I just hope he never gets control. I'd much rather see a true park/coaster geek running things.

Umm I hate to break it to ya Rescue,but could it be that Snyder only bought SF stock because of his close proximity to SFA?

Think about it....if he really wanted the land for his own use then wouldn't he petition the county to order the park shut down & dismantled(cough SFAW cough)?SFA brings in money for the county through the hefty amusement tax that's added onto each ticket price at the gate so there's no way they're just gonna allow Snyder to just waltz in there & tear the place down....that & locals won't stand for it,kinda like how the locals are sorta up in arms over the SFAW closure.

What world do you live in? A county has no authority to shut down and dismantle a business unless they're doing something illegal.

I still want to know how old BWFSFA is. He/She can't be over 18.

---

BATWING FAN SFA said:
Umm I hate to break it to ya Rescue,but could it be that Snyder only bought SF stock because of his close proximity to SFA?

---

Wouldn't it be less of a stretch to assume that he just saw a cheap stock in an underperforming company that might lead to a great return with some management changes?

I know I'm walking on thin ice by trying to bring logic into one of your ideas, but I figured it was worth a shot.

Tekno, I believe at one point we determined he's in his late 20s/early 30s ... which makes it all that much more pathetic...

At what point does annoyance bring the BANHAMMA?

---

Impulse-ive said:
At what point does annoyance bring the BANHAMMA?

---

*I* am still here Brett... ;)
:)

Why is this park so valued??

-Nate

If the park were "valued" it would be taken care of, at least in respect to SFGam and SFGadv. Adding coasters isn't a form of value, we learned that a long time ago, it's a quick and VERY temporary fix.

It's like putting a band aid over a gun shot wound. The park *isn't* valued, by anyone except the few remaining fanboys. Which is why I truly hope the company is sold to someone that can see beyond the next coaster...

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone, they paved paradise, and put up a parking lot".

-RIP Astroworld

Nice JM quote DWeaver. So true.

i love how people are freaking out.... they are closing ONE park as of now. this doesn't mean the whole chain is going to fold. SFNO doesn't count because that was a natural disaster. They are closing ONE park!

I'm sure not all of the SF parks sit on extremely valuable land. For example, SFDL (I know that's the only park I use as an example.. lol.. it's the only SF park I've been to!)... SFDL is in the freaking middle of a cornfield... surrounded by farms... i doubt the neighbors would engage in a multi-million battle for that land.

LIEK OMG SFAW IS CLOSING THE END IS HERE!!!!!!11!!!1one

(sorry...hehe)

I don't think anyone needs to worry about Snyder's messing up SF. It can't get much worse, anyway. He went after SF because it's an investor's dream: a horribly mismanaged company with obvious and fixable problems.

Besides, Snyder is a smart guy, he knows what he's doing (Washington Redskins notwithstanding).

I read a great editorial recently that got rid of the p.c. bull that people have been talking about New Orleans and it being a "natural disaster." The natural disaster happened elsewhere. New Orleans only had the after effects. You build yourself in a bowl that'll fill with water if the levees are breached with only a category 3 storm and you get a predictable outcome. This is a man made problem pure and simple. Smart people don't build buildings (or amusement parks) in an area where the worst can happen. Someone also decided maintenance of the levees was not a priority and here are the results you get. Why do we keep paying out insurance for people to rebuild their McMansions on beaches that are prone to water damage and/or floods?

I like the story I saw on NBC Nightly News the other night about the Netherlands (I beleive). They had the same problem of being below sea level, but spent billions on a more effective two gate system (trust me, the suckers are very large) after the last flood they had. It looks a lot more efffective than shoring up shallow levees .

"Smart people" do build a seaport at the mouth of a major river.

Show a little f'ing compassion.

---

DWeaver said:
If [SFMM] were "valued" it would be taken care of, at least in respect to SFGam and SFGadv. Adding coasters isn't a form of value, we learned that a long time ago, it's a quick and VERY temporary fix. It's like putting a band aid over a gun shot wound. The park *isn't* valued, by anyone except the few remaining fanboys.

---

I agree with your assessment of Six Flags' investment in SFMM. I don't believe that coasters are what SFMM needs, nor do I believe that this newest ride will help the park at all. However, that's not really what I was talking about when I said "valued." Perhaps I should have been more clear.

If you listen to conference calls, Six Flags continually makes it clear which properties matter most to them. Lately the focus has definitely been on SFGAm and SFGAdv, but SFMM (and, to some extent, SFoT) are always close behind. Over all of their other parks, Six Flags always mentions SFMM as one of their "top parks." My question was why. Attendance may be relatively high, but it also has a far longer season than the other parks.

You mention that SFMM is hardly "valued" because it's not invested in properly. Not having budget statements in front of me, I think it's difficult to tell where investments are going. The only investments that are very clear are capital expenditures. In that respect, SFMM is pretty in-line with SFGAm and SFGAdv. It seems, then, that SFMM is at least in some way valued by corporate if they find it necessary to dump new rides into the park. Again, I question why that park gets so much in terms of new rides when it doesn't seem to respond to them.

It's possible that the problems with SFMM are due to a lack of funding from corporate to cover their expenses (and here I'm referring to maintenance, upkeep, training, etc). I think it's perhaps more likely, though, that these problems are due to SFMM's own management. It seems to me that someone - probably several people - at that park just aren't really with it.

Gator: SFMM may have potential, but I'm not sure that's reason enough to consider it "valued" if it isn't responding to your investments. Clearly there's something majorly wrong at the Mountain. Maybe there are two ways to look at it. You could say that Corporate says it's valued, but doesn't treat it as such. On the other hand, I see Corporate considering the park "valued" and dumping in investments for no good reason, as I don't think SFMM's results are nearly as good as Corporate implies.

-Nate

hmmmm, I'm trying to figure my way through the logic here.

SFNO (Formerly Jazz Land) should never have been built because it is close to New Orleans...and therefore...prone to floods?

What about Magic Mountain in CA. CA is prone to earthquakes so I guess it is stupid to build amusement parks in CA (or anything for that matter....)

Or, what about amusement parks (and all the other structures) in FL? I guess we should stop rebuilding the entire state of FL as they have been clobbered by hurricanes the past few years? Those bastards by the sea!