SF Conference Call details - 6 parks may sell
On the other hand, I could see SFMM going unsold (let's face it, the park value must be through the roof). Going unsold, and we'll eventually see what happened to Astroworld, but for different reasons (land being sold, rides being distributed to other parks).
SFDL is an interesting asset to sell. I don't know how much more expansion the park can handle (see also: SFMM... well I guess you could add more family rides). If someone could fill me in on this, please do it. *** Edited 6/23/2006 12:59:53 AM UTC by Arson*** *** Edited 6/23/2006 1:04:23 AM UTC by Arson***
- Ryan - http://www.tideblue.com/painter/
I can't really imagine SFMM getting bulldozed, it is the world record holder for most coasters and such, and is only second to Cedar Point as thrill-based parks go.
While that may be true it does not address the main problem with SFMM: it does not make money for the chain.
Any of you who thinks they'd never close SFMM are in for a rude awakening.
*** Edited 6/23/2006 1:03:40 AM UTC by Mamoosh***
egieszl said:
- How much do you think 250 acres in Southern California would rent for on a monthly basis?- How much annual revenue and profit do you think Magic Mountain makes?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're arguing is not SFMM's potential profibility, but it's potential profibility RELATIVE to the land's potential profibility in another use.
In your first post it sounded to me like you were arguing that somehow the value of the land was hindering the park's profibility which didn't make sense to me.
Mamoosh said:
Everything I hear from people in the industry confirms that SFMM is not a money-making park.
Well if that isn't the lion's share of the $71.7 million in EBITDA that those six parks generated last year then I'm passing around the offering tray for a collection to get me a little Elitch Gardens and Darien Lake action!
Maybe Magic Mountain has the potential to make more. Heck, of course it does. But if we're to believe the frankness and transparency of Shapiro & Co. then it starts with realizing that the park IS a money-making park. At the park operating level.
For those that are not EXTREMELY familiar with the park, FYI, the only coasters at this park that sit on relatively flat or completely flat land are The Riddler's Revenge, Flashback, Scream!, Colossus, Psyclone, Batman The Ride, Deja Vu, Goliath Jr., and Canyon Blaster. Everything else listed below was built to fit the rolling and sloping hills of the park and have very big elevation changes. Keep in mind, the damn park wasn't named Magic MOUNTAIN for no reason.
- Gold Rusher (high dependancy on current terrain, VERY, VERY LOW possibility of relocation)
- Revolution (high dependancy on current terrain; VERY, VERY LOW possibility of relocation)
- Tatsu (high dependancy on current terrain, VERY, VERY LOW possibility for relocation)
- Superman The Escape (dependancy on current terrain; VERY VERY LOW possibility of relocation)
- X (dependancy on current terrain; LOW possibility of relocation)
- Ninja (high dependancy on current terrain; VERY, VERY LOW possibility of relocation)
- Viper (dependancy on current terrain; LOW possibility of relocation)
- Goliath (dependancy on current terrain; LOW possibility of relocation)
Hamster Boy said:
I see Busch as a strong candidate for SFMM, A place they can operate year round and add a new continent to the chain. Perhaps Asia?I don't think that Busch Gardens is wanting to go back to California.....
Uh. Busch Gardens is owned by Anheuser Busch. Anheuser Busch also owns and operates SeaWorld Adventure Parks. There is a SeaWorld Adventure Park in San Diego. They don't not have to not want to back to California. THEY ARE ALREADY THERE, and have been since the 1960's.
And for those don't know, SeaWorld San Diego was one of the two in the partnership (the other in the partership was Newhall LD) that funded, designed, and built Magic Mountain between 1969-1970.
So, to be technical, Magic Mountain has roots with Busch Parks. ;)
While that may be true it does not address the main problem with SFMM: it does not make money for the chain.Any of you who thinks they'd never close SFMM are in for a rude awakening.
Moosh, you cited numerous industry experts regarding what you speak of as fact, how certain are you about this talk? What source did YOUR sources go to get this information? Why and who would disclose this information to you?
As for the last part of your post, I'd love to see you put your foot in your mouth. Have your digital camera and photo upload software ready. :)
*** Edited 6/23/2006 1:40:40 AM UTC by kRaXLeRidAh***
Oh, I don't think the current Six Flags regime has any attachment to Magic Mountain (or anything besides $), I just don't see it getting bulldozed. I'm pretty sure Cedar Fair or Busch would pick it up first.
As for it being a drain, well, it's hard to recoup a brand-new top shelf coaster darn near every year. If they stopped with the coaster-spam approach and fixed the (rather glaring) problems with the park, perhaps not putting in anything until 2011, maybe it COULD be profitable. *** Edited 6/23/2006 1:12:46 AM UTC by Vincent Greene***
Haha no I'm not giving Patrick the finger 
Hamster Boy said:
How much do you think the park could sell for. My guess is maybe 30 to 60 million. My guess is probly way off though.
Way off. The land of AstroWorld alone fetched $77 million.
The company didn't break down the EBITDA of each park, but if we go by past park acquisition multiples, all six combined would fetch in the ballpark of $500 million to $700 million.
The high end is unlikely (because Cedar Fair already got its synergistic fill), but $500 million or so would be fair for all six.
Impulse-ive said:
Come on Kennycorp ... pick up SFDL ... do it ... do it! ... do it!!
I think that would be an excellent idea.
Impulse-ive said:
Come on Kennycorp ... pick up SFDL ... do it ... do it! ... do it!!
And then get some sort of chain-wide season pass system in place. :)
Wait, I don't live there anymore. Screw it, do what you want.
While that location has the benefit of a warm climate that permits year round operation for the park it results in much higher operating expenditures in terms of ride maintenance,operations security etc. while a seasonal park has the advantage of reduced operating costs in most of these departments due to the 4 month off season.
CF isn't looking to buy SFMM,or any other park right now as they're still trying to finance the aqqusition of the paramount chain that was made public last month & we know darn well that they don't want to make the same mistake the previous SF ownership did by going on a park buying spree now don't we?
Two major changes could be expected at a Kennywood owned Darien Lake. First, more family friendly attractions would be added including both dry and water attractions. Second, prices would become more reasonable. Given the nature of Kennywood Entertainment parks, DL would not try to be another Canada's Wonderland but would go for its own identity. This would make it easier for the park market itself in the presence of the larger park. At the same time, the parks size and coaster count would allow it to promote its greater offerings as compared to smaller parks such as Martin's, Seabreeze and Waldameer. *** Edited 6/23/2006 2:46:41 AM UTC by Arthur Bahl***
Arthur Bahl
Kevin Max said:
I call first dibs on X for SFGAm -- Lord knows we probably aren't due for another coaster til 2011 under "family man" Mark.
Why do you even need another coaster? I was just there last Monday and part of Tuesday, and let me tell you, you've got an excellent lineup already. We didn't find a dog amongst any of the twelve coasters. Sure, they could remove the brakes from Raging Bull, and it would be a lot more exciting, but it does fill that family hypercoaster niche quite well and it had a lot of people queueing for it. Not every hyper can be a S:ROS at NE, I suppose.
SFGAm also has lots of flats, two logflumes, a shoot-the-chutes, a white water rapids ride, an enormous year-old Hurricane Harbor (which just got a Tornado this year), a motion-simulator theater, and another theater next to it that shows a Space-oriented movie (wasn't open). The atmosphere is excellent, and the place looks great. What more do you want? *** Edited 6/23/2006 3:37:50 AM UTC by Intamin Fan***
matt. said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're arguing is not SFMM's potential profibility, but it's potential profibility RELATIVE to the land's potential profibility in another use.In your first post it sounded to me like you were arguing that somehow the value of the land was hindering the park's profibility which didn't make sense to me.
No you're correct.
Let's say the land is worth $250 million. That's probably very conservative.. Let's say Magic Mountain's bottom line profit is $10 million a year. So maybe the operation is worth $100 million and the rest of the assets another $75 million. The exact numbers doesn't matter for the sake of the argument.
So you have to pay $425 million for a business that is only going make an annual profit of $10 million. It would take you 42 years to get your initial investment out. That's piss pour performance. If I had $400 million in cash I can think of a lot of others things I'd invest in.
A housing developer could turn abig profit on that big parcel in a matter of years. A theme park operation under a new owner doesn't make sense. If the park were sold as a package deal I could see it possibly staying a theme park, but Shapiro and team knows the value. Six Flags is going to try to maximize the cash revenue from the possible sale even if it means the end of the park. In other words he isn't going to part with less just to keep it a theme park.
egieszl said:
So you have to pay $425 million for a business that is only going make an annual profit of $10 million. It would take you 42 years to get your initial investment out. That's piss pour performance. If I had $400 million in cash I can think of a lot of others things I'd invest in.A housing developer could turn abig profit on that big parcel in a matter of years. A theme park operation under a new owner doesn't make sense.
Precisely! :)
You must be logged in to post
